Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Legends and Lore October 22nd
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 6037105" data-attributes="member: 6696971"><p>If I'm reading you right, I don't think I agree with this here. "Predictable" and "reliable reproducibility" can be ascertained with a measure of objectivity. Now whether or not predictability or reliable reproduction is a "good thing" for a particular playstyle preference is definitely a values judgement and, as such, will be laden with subjectivity. I'm certainly not making any value judgements on playstyle. I'm just saying that a system with a tightly QCed encounter formula (with intra-PC balance and PC:challenge balance) will produce reliable (not perfect) results. Moreover, those reliable results are key to a specific playstyle. But I'm sure this is not controversial. Different mechanical resolutions and the different aims that underpin them aid/produce different playstyles. Pretty straight forward.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>I don't disagree with you here overall. I was generally talking about the encounter formula. With that I was excluding the potential for swinginess (of consequence) within the various classes resource schemes (which, of course, unified PC build mechanics specifically addresses) as I was presupposing that said swinginess was mitigated or minimized (as is done in the aforementioned PC build framework in 4e). </p><p> </p><p>However, I do disagree with the "samey" quality assessment, which I'm sure is of no surprise <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite7" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue :p" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":p" /> I've found that my ability to reliably build encounters that produce to my meta-gamed expectations liberates me extraordinarily to create more dynamic and varying encounters than in any edition before (this coupled with the various tools - condition track, swarm rules, rich action economy, immediate actions, PC resource schemes allowing their own sustainability, extreme mobility built into the system). Reliability doesn't mean that I can't intentionally create TPKs or walkthroughs. In fact, it means that I have more confidence than ever that what I'm intending to create will manifest as such. My PCs aren't privy to my meta-gaming. They don't have the luxury of expectation of n level or n + 3 level encounters (nor can they reliably predict them by way of some meta-gamed inference...at least not anymore than in the past). </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>Yup. Some groups certainly feel that way and for them, hard-coding out latent entropy (and its accompanying capacity for swinginess) would be a bug...not a feature. You'll get no argument here.</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>Couple things that I need to address here:</p><p> </p><p>1) My determination of swinginess that I find anathema to my DMing style (and my group's playstyle preference for long-term, thematic campaigns) is when (i) PC resource schemes (Scry, Buff, Teleport, Kill) or (ii) Group Strategic Powerplays that become SOP (flying thieves with ropes tied to them, 10 ' poles, decanters of endless water flooding dungeons, etc) or (iii) absurd SoD or SoS effects narrow the scope of play by regularly circumventing, or drowning out by its load-bearing capacity, mechanical resolution of conflicts or by making climactic plot points utterly anti-climactic. Neither of those are fun for us anymore given our preferences.</p><p> </p><p>2) I'm all for working towards and leveraging strategic advantage. My PCs have always worked toward this and always will. I just don't want that strategic advantage (nor do they) to drown out the relevance of tactical play. Advantage. Yes. Drown out or absolute circumvention. No. Specifically, in many cases I make it implicit that the odds against them are overwhelming and their only opportunity at victory (or even survival) is pulling out all the stops toward strategic advantage. 4e has helped me adjudicate this quite well (in terms of what this strategic advantage weighs in encounter budget adjudication). The other day (I can't recall what thread it was in), I outlined a Skill Challenge that I devised whereby my PCs were defending a frontier town that was about to be overwhelmed by a barbarian horde (of which I used swarm rules for the mass combat) and they had to set up (and activate in the impending conflict) Hazards and Limited Use Terrain/Effects. If they passed the Skill Challenge, they gained the use of these and provided a morale buff for the the few available town defenders (which was passed onto the PCs when they died for their cause). In short, I'm all for it and I find that 4e helps me be more precise than ever before in leveraging it. And that liberates me (from any temptation toward DM force) and makes me happy!</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Manbearcat, post: 6037105, member: 6696971"] If I'm reading you right, I don't think I agree with this here. "Predictable" and "reliable reproducibility" can be ascertained with a measure of objectivity. Now whether or not predictability or reliable reproduction is a "good thing" for a particular playstyle preference is definitely a values judgement and, as such, will be laden with subjectivity. I'm certainly not making any value judgements on playstyle. I'm just saying that a system with a tightly QCed encounter formula (with intra-PC balance and PC:challenge balance) will produce reliable (not perfect) results. Moreover, those reliable results are key to a specific playstyle. But I'm sure this is not controversial. Different mechanical resolutions and the different aims that underpin them aid/produce different playstyles. Pretty straight forward. I don't disagree with you here overall. I was generally talking about the encounter formula. With that I was excluding the potential for swinginess (of consequence) within the various classes resource schemes (which, of course, unified PC build mechanics specifically addresses) as I was presupposing that said swinginess was mitigated or minimized (as is done in the aforementioned PC build framework in 4e). However, I do disagree with the "samey" quality assessment, which I'm sure is of no surprise :p I've found that my ability to reliably build encounters that produce to my meta-gamed expectations liberates me extraordinarily to create more dynamic and varying encounters than in any edition before (this coupled with the various tools - condition track, swarm rules, rich action economy, immediate actions, PC resource schemes allowing their own sustainability, extreme mobility built into the system). Reliability doesn't mean that I can't intentionally create TPKs or walkthroughs. In fact, it means that I have more confidence than ever that what I'm intending to create will manifest as such. My PCs aren't privy to my meta-gaming. They don't have the luxury of expectation of n level or n + 3 level encounters (nor can they reliably predict them by way of some meta-gamed inference...at least not anymore than in the past). Yup. Some groups certainly feel that way and for them, hard-coding out latent entropy (and its accompanying capacity for swinginess) would be a bug...not a feature. You'll get no argument here. Couple things that I need to address here: 1) My determination of swinginess that I find anathema to my DMing style (and my group's playstyle preference for long-term, thematic campaigns) is when (i) PC resource schemes (Scry, Buff, Teleport, Kill) or (ii) Group Strategic Powerplays that become SOP (flying thieves with ropes tied to them, 10 ' poles, decanters of endless water flooding dungeons, etc) or (iii) absurd SoD or SoS effects narrow the scope of play by regularly circumventing, or drowning out by its load-bearing capacity, mechanical resolution of conflicts or by making climactic plot points utterly anti-climactic. Neither of those are fun for us anymore given our preferences. 2) I'm all for working towards and leveraging strategic advantage. My PCs have always worked toward this and always will. I just don't want that strategic advantage (nor do they) to drown out the relevance of tactical play. Advantage. Yes. Drown out or absolute circumvention. No. Specifically, in many cases I make it implicit that the odds against them are overwhelming and their only opportunity at victory (or even survival) is pulling out all the stops toward strategic advantage. 4e has helped me adjudicate this quite well (in terms of what this strategic advantage weighs in encounter budget adjudication). The other day (I can't recall what thread it was in), I outlined a Skill Challenge that I devised whereby my PCs were defending a frontier town that was about to be overwhelmed by a barbarian horde (of which I used swarm rules for the mass combat) and they had to set up (and activate in the impending conflict) Hazards and Limited Use Terrain/Effects. If they passed the Skill Challenge, they gained the use of these and provided a morale buff for the the few available town defenders (which was passed onto the PCs when they died for their cause). In short, I'm all for it and I find that 4e helps me be more precise than ever before in leveraging it. And that liberates me (from any temptation toward DM force) and makes me happy! [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Legends and Lore October 22nd
Top