Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="LostSoul" data-source="post: 5964016" data-attributes="member: 386">In my 4E hack game I dispense with the illusion and just tell the players the level of the hex.&nbsp; Encounters are based on the level of the hex, so that works.&nbsp; Metagaming is explicitly allowed, since I want to challenge the players.I like the idea of a ritual - that engages the currency of the game.&nbsp; If I were to drop the idea of explicit metagaming (not likely), I'd use that.The big problem is that &quot;monster&quot; (re: NPC) content needs to be created with more care than has ever been done in the past.&nbsp; How is one to tell the difference between an AD&amp;D gnoll, ogre, or troll?&nbsp; (I'm not sure dead PCs are a good way of gaining knowledge.)&nbsp; Or a 3E kobold Warrior-1 vs. a kobold Sorcerer-20?&nbsp; (My PC in my current 3.5 game has Permanency-ed Arcane Sight to avoid this problem; although he has a minimum of +10 on all Knowledge checks, that's not good enough.)Problem number 2: I agree.&nbsp; This is why I think that the method that 3E and 4E use should continue.&nbsp; It's easy enough to use 4E in a way that allows sandbox play - tie rewards to risk instead of party level, i.e. set the treasure parcel (roll, if you're so inclined) to encounter level instead of party level - but it's hard to play AD&amp;D in the &quot;Adventure Path&quot; style of balanced encounters.So while I appreciate what they're trying to do, I don't think it will work for either style of game.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="LostSoul, post: 5964016, member: 386"] In my 4E hack game I dispense with the illusion and just tell the players the level of the hex. Encounters are based on the level of the hex, so that works. Metagaming is explicitly allowed, since I want to challenge the players. I like the idea of a ritual - that engages the currency of the game. If I were to drop the idea of explicit metagaming (not likely), I'd use that. The big problem is that "monster" (re: NPC) content needs to be created with more care than has ever been done in the past. How is one to tell the difference between an AD&D gnoll, ogre, or troll? (I'm not sure dead PCs are a good way of gaining knowledge.) Or a 3E kobold Warrior-1 vs. a kobold Sorcerer-20? (My PC in my current 3.5 game has Permanency-ed Arcane Sight to avoid this problem; although he has a minimum of +10 on all Knowledge checks, that's not good enough.) Problem number 2: I agree. This is why I think that the method that 3E and 4E use should continue. It's easy enough to use 4E in a way that allows sandbox play - tie rewards to risk instead of party level, i.e. set the treasure parcel (roll, if you're so inclined) to encounter level instead of party level - but it's hard to play AD&D in the "Adventure Path" style of balanced encounters. So while I appreciate what they're trying to do, I don't think it will work for either style of game. [/QUOTE]

Verification