Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 9616539" data-attributes="member: 4937">My impression is that this idea that the encounter guidelines restricted you to 4 encounters with CR equivalent foes exists more in theory than it did in reality.&nbsp; The part of the article that resonates with me the most is &quot;I literally can’t understand how this happened, because the very next paragraph read:..&quot;&nbsp; I literally can't understand how this happened, but also because of that and because I never really encountered this idea among any DM of 3e I talked to, I don't think it actually happened.What I did see was a few players asserting that &quot;wealth by level&quot; was a contract that the DM was obligated to fulfill rather than a guideline, or players arguing that the game only worked if you had magic shops and fungible wealth, but to me that represented a play preference among certain (mostly dysfunctional) players with certain aesthetics.&nbsp; To be quite frank, some of the louder voices struck me as coming from those players who only played in public because no private table would put up with them, and thus their whole experience was cons, living campaigns, and open table nights at local gaming stores.&nbsp; I once accidentally recruited such a group of players by naively putting up a sign asking for players at a gaming store after moving to a new area and being friendless and found myself living the dysfunction of a Knights of the Dinner Table story, and by that I don't mean the comparative healthiness of B.A.'s table.&nbsp;&nbsp; To the extent that the belief system that challenge couldn't be highly varied existed, I laud the Alexandrian for pointing how that wasn't even how the game was written or presented by examples (such as the original WotC adventure path), but I suspect he's tilting at straw men to some extent.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 9616539, member: 4937"] My impression is that this idea that the encounter guidelines restricted you to 4 encounters with CR equivalent foes exists more in theory than it did in reality. The part of the article that resonates with me the most is "I literally can’t understand how this happened, because the very next paragraph read:.." I literally can't understand how this happened, but also because of that and because I never really encountered this idea among any DM of 3e I talked to, I don't think it actually happened. What I did see was a few players asserting that "wealth by level" was a contract that the DM was obligated to fulfill rather than a guideline, or players arguing that the game only worked if you had magic shops and fungible wealth, but to me that represented a play preference among certain (mostly dysfunctional) players with certain aesthetics. To be quite frank, some of the louder voices struck me as coming from those players who only played in public because no private table would put up with them, and thus their whole experience was cons, living campaigns, and open table nights at local gaming stores. I once accidentally recruited such a group of players by naively putting up a sign asking for players at a gaming store after moving to a new area and being friendless and found myself living the dysfunction of a Knights of the Dinner Table story, and by that I don't mean the comparative healthiness of B.A.'s table. To the extent that the belief system that challenge couldn't be highly varied existed, I laud the Alexandrian for pointing how that wasn't even how the game was written or presented by examples (such as the original WotC adventure path), but I suspect he's tilting at straw men to some extent. [/QUOTE]

Verification