Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="happyhermit" data-source="post: 6971368" data-attributes="member: 6834463">I have to agree it was probably the best, CoS and SKT have a lot going for them but I doubt I will ever see another adventure get as much play any time soon.I was simply adding to the post that demonstrated that there have been adventures that followed the guideline from the beginning. Yes it followed the guideline as intended. It gives both the party and the GM some wiggle room (first encounter has an out) but sets up a situation where there are many encounters that need to get resolved one way or another and long-resting is not practical. It isn't about locking the PCs in a white room or putting them solely on the defensive, it is about situations and motivations that make for an interesting adventure. It also isn't about having every adventure like this, just establishing the possibility is largely enough.I agree that high level play is more difficult for the GM to make challenging, but that's all most of us think it is &quot;challenging&quot;. Sometimes these days I just don't want that challenge, especially magic items and &quot;utility&quot; spells (I hate divination type stuff) but when I do it isn't an issue. Some encounters will be cake-walks, by accident or design, but creating challenging combats is simply an issue of strategy and to a lessor degree tactics. The OP though, seems to not actually want the challenge of using reasonable strategy against even an optimised party, and wants to ignore the &quot;guidelines&quot; provided and yet somehow have an &quot;appropriately&quot; challenging encounter just happen. Well, it ain't gonna just happen, because if it did then those of us who wanted to play with some strategy would either mop the floor given the same pieces or (as in some other systems) not have the tools to play with reasonable strategy. The portion of GMs that really want to play high level but don't want to think about strategy/synergy/tactics is just too low compared to the impact it would have, IMHO.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="happyhermit, post: 6971368, member: 6834463"] I have to agree it was probably the best, CoS and SKT have a lot going for them but I doubt I will ever see another adventure get as much play any time soon. I was simply adding to the post that demonstrated that there have been adventures that followed the guideline from the beginning. Yes it followed the [U]guideline[/U] as intended. It gives both the party and the GM some wiggle room (first encounter has an out) but sets up a situation where there are many encounters that need to get resolved one way or another and long-resting is not practical. It isn't about locking the PCs in a white room or putting them solely on the defensive, it is about situations and motivations that make for an interesting adventure. It also isn't about having every adventure like this, just establishing the possibility is largely enough. I agree that high level play is more difficult for the GM to make challenging, but that's all most of us think it is "challenging". Sometimes these days I just don't want that challenge, especially magic items and "utility" spells (I hate divination type stuff) but when I do it isn't an issue. Some encounters will be cake-walks, by accident or design, but creating challenging combats is simply an issue of strategy and to a lessor degree tactics. The OP though, seems to not actually want the challenge of using reasonable strategy against even an optimised party, [U]and[/U] wants to ignore the "guidelines" provided and yet somehow have an "appropriately" challenging encounter just [I]happen[/I]. Well, it ain't gonna just happen, because if it did then those of us who wanted to play with some strategy would either mop the floor given the same pieces or (as in some other systems) not have the tools to play with reasonable strategy. The portion of GMs that really want to play high level but don't want to think about strategy/synergy/tactics is just too low compared to the impact it would have, IMHO. [/QUOTE]

Verification