Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="knasser" data-source="post: 6955122" data-attributes="member: 65151">Sacrosanct, there's a lot of rephrasing in your post which isn't a supportable reading of what I wrote. "do everything for you," "best possible result," "get past this sense of entitlement," "not put in any prep work". None of that is what I wrote.I have finite time to prep a game. I said I would rather devote that time to improving other things than compensating for pitfalls in the game or monster design. That's very different to not willing to put in any time at all which is how you keep casting me. I'm not setting impossible standards that something must be the best it could ever be, I do want things to work well out of the box without me requiring huge amounts of experience such as CapnZapp has to be able to spot buried traps in the rules. Sense of Entitlement? I'm not demanding I be given anything for free, I have spent a substantial amount of money on this product and the game designers are FAR better placed than myself to understand the implications and gotchas of any given design decision. Ergo, the onus is on them to do so. That's what I'm paying them for. Of course you can argue that our standards are too high and we should be happy with a lower level of quality if you wish, but at least say so rather than attack people for it with comments about getting past themselves or D&D isn't for you.How is wanting the game to have better designed solo monsters making the game about me, rather than for the masses? Don't the things being suggested make the game better for "the masses", too? If a constraint can be removed without negative effects elsewhere - such as the Jubilex example earlier - how is that not a better thing all round? If solo monster staples of D&D (such as dragons) no longer work well, isn't that a negative for everyone? How do you interpret objections about these things as the voicer wanting to make everything about themselves?That was one thing that was mentioned, but the wider discussion encompasses much more. The parts I was talking on are to do with monster design and "instawin" abilities.I disagree. They seem to have been played appropriately to their knowledge at the time. However, CapnZapp will make that case far better than I will (and indeed, already has). My concern is more the constraint on the type of stories that can be run. My gaming runs heavily to the story, atmosphere and realism. All those lend themselves naturally towards a small number (maybe one) of encounters rather than a drip drip of smaller ones. I'm starting to find (and others including yourself are backing me up on this conclusion) that this doesn't work very well out of the box. Additionally, I don't think my players would enjoy attrition-based challenge. I think that would go for most players, honestly. If the challenge of a combat is to get through it without using up more than the minimum resources necessary, I struggle to find that an interesting combat. Any story-focused game is going to find its pacing and drama weighed down and sapped by derailing into low-consequence encounters all the time.If D&D can be made to work well for low numbers of big encounters without detracting elsewhere, then that is a positive thing to ask for.Additionally, something else I am noticing is the minimal differentiation between many of the monsters. Goblins, Hobgoblins, Orcs, Skeletons... They're all very minor variants on the same statistics. A great deal more variety of play could be introduced here, imo.</blockquote>

Verification