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
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
MCDM's New Tactical TTRPG Hits $1M Crowdfunding On First Day!
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="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 9231709" data-attributes="member: 18"><p>I want to agree but I can't, because it's contradictory to the "bag of rats" logic, hard-contradictory.</p><p></p><p>Either a group of enemies is a threat worthy of a Victory or they're a bag of rats. You can't put them in a quantum superposition where they're worthy of a Victory if you fight them, but not if you evade them.</p><p></p><p>I do agree that if they were trivially avoided (i.e. by simply going around them easily - which I wouldn't characterize as "sneaking past", note, so to me that language indicates that wasn't the case), that is a bit different, that probably need to be examined by the rules as to what should happen.</p><p></p><p>And it's still a perverse incentive. You're incentivized to fight any enemy which doesn't count as a "bag of rats", if you don't award people for sneaking past them. Also, if you set a high bar for the sneaking reward, that's a perverse incentive of its own, because a group who comes up with a smooth, easy solution that doesn't involve rolling, risk, heroism, probably because the DM didn't think of it, should by your logic not be rewarded, whereas a boneheaded group who attempts some super-risky sneak-by because they couldn't come up with a smarter one does get rewarded. This incentive isn't as perverse because that does kind of lean into genre tropes at least.</p><p></p><p>This isn't arguable or deniable, either. It flatly is, factually (not opinion-based) a perverse incentive. But I do note no-one has tried to suggest it isn't, rather just talked around that issue, so I'm not suggesting you have attempted to claim it's not! I just mention it because I'm surprised people have addressed that. Maybe it's too obvious.</p><p></p><p>It's all solvable, imho, by having a different/alternative XP approach though - I don't think 1 Victory is otherwise going to make great odds to the gameplay. But I've seen how motivated perhaps the narrow majority of groups I've encountered are by XP (this is purely anecdotal, if your experience is different, I accept that), particularly more experienced and tactically-minded groups, and I absolutely know that many parties would "steer into the wind" to get an extra chunk of XP - this has been true for the entire 35 years I've been playing and echoed by people describing games too.</p><p></p><p>Based on their source material and inspiration I must disagree. It's a constant in heroic fantasy that people use stealth and evasion, and that it's a good and winning tactic (that often lets you avoid unnecessary bloodshed of less morally turpid minions, too). You don't mindlessly fight every fight in heroic fantasy fiction - but you also don't try and make every fight into an ambush like you do in non-4E D&D/PF1 (and maybe PF2, I dunno). It's kick down the door fantasy, but it doesn't mean you don't sneak at times.</p><p></p><p>Also, If it's always best to punch someone in the face, and that seems to be the approach on the basis of these rules, why even have "sneaking by"-type rules? They simply don't have rules for other stuff they don't think the game should be focusing on, which I think is smart, but I'm seeing a contradiction here.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Ruin Explorer, post: 9231709, member: 18"] I want to agree but I can't, because it's contradictory to the "bag of rats" logic, hard-contradictory. Either a group of enemies is a threat worthy of a Victory or they're a bag of rats. You can't put them in a quantum superposition where they're worthy of a Victory if you fight them, but not if you evade them. I do agree that if they were trivially avoided (i.e. by simply going around them easily - which I wouldn't characterize as "sneaking past", note, so to me that language indicates that wasn't the case), that is a bit different, that probably need to be examined by the rules as to what should happen. And it's still a perverse incentive. You're incentivized to fight any enemy which doesn't count as a "bag of rats", if you don't award people for sneaking past them. Also, if you set a high bar for the sneaking reward, that's a perverse incentive of its own, because a group who comes up with a smooth, easy solution that doesn't involve rolling, risk, heroism, probably because the DM didn't think of it, should by your logic not be rewarded, whereas a boneheaded group who attempts some super-risky sneak-by because they couldn't come up with a smarter one does get rewarded. This incentive isn't as perverse because that does kind of lean into genre tropes at least. This isn't arguable or deniable, either. It flatly is, factually (not opinion-based) a perverse incentive. But I do note no-one has tried to suggest it isn't, rather just talked around that issue, so I'm not suggesting you have attempted to claim it's not! I just mention it because I'm surprised people have addressed that. Maybe it's too obvious. It's all solvable, imho, by having a different/alternative XP approach though - I don't think 1 Victory is otherwise going to make great odds to the gameplay. But I've seen how motivated perhaps the narrow majority of groups I've encountered are by XP (this is purely anecdotal, if your experience is different, I accept that), particularly more experienced and tactically-minded groups, and I absolutely know that many parties would "steer into the wind" to get an extra chunk of XP - this has been true for the entire 35 years I've been playing and echoed by people describing games too. Based on their source material and inspiration I must disagree. It's a constant in heroic fantasy that people use stealth and evasion, and that it's a good and winning tactic (that often lets you avoid unnecessary bloodshed of less morally turpid minions, too). You don't mindlessly fight every fight in heroic fantasy fiction - but you also don't try and make every fight into an ambush like you do in non-4E D&D/PF1 (and maybe PF2, I dunno). It's kick down the door fantasy, but it doesn't mean you don't sneak at times. Also, If it's always best to punch someone in the face, and that seems to be the approach on the basis of these rules, why even have "sneaking by"-type rules? They simply don't have rules for other stuff they don't think the game should be focusing on, which I think is smart, but I'm seeing a contradiction here. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
MCDM's New Tactical TTRPG Hits $1M Crowdfunding On First Day!
Top