Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="James Gasik" data-source="post: 8579873" data-attributes="member: 6877472">Well in the instance of SUPER RANGER, I felt a playtest session, not a real campaign in the slightest, was the best opportunity to prove my point.&nbsp; We were stress testing a new format for adventures, after all.&nbsp; It ended up with a string of easy encounters, a hard one, and a TPK (too...many...trolls...).Now as far as narratively important combats, I'm going to state that first, I don't super optimize.&nbsp; My last 5e character was a multiclassed High Elf Arcane Cleric/Wizard, and I was keeping my levels even (basically, he was a rebuild of my old 3e character, who wasn't terribly optimized either).&nbsp; I make characters, not robots (unless they ARE robots, of course).&nbsp; I try to match the level of competency of the other players as best I can, but I'm not looking to outshine people with greater mechanical knowledge.&nbsp; As a DM myself, nothing wrecks a game faster than an unbalanced party.&nbsp; Except maybe a Deck of Many Things.It's just hard to explain &quot;this is how the game is&quot; to someone who thinks a Hybrid Blackguard/Assassin is somehow the bleeding edge of CharOp without showing them, and I thought a game with no real stakes was the best time to do that.Now, moving on, no plan goes according to plan.&nbsp; Enemies can sometimes be taken out with luck, or players for that matter.&nbsp; I don't see everyone playing on the same level, working to support each other, to achieve greater success through synergy as a problem.&nbsp; Too many tables are just &quot;four or five random guys on an adventure&quot;.If everyone is playing the best they can, how can that be wrong?&nbsp; So the monster the DM thought was a super epic enemy died?&nbsp; It's not like he doesn't have more chances to challenge the party.&nbsp; It's not like there can't be narrative consequences as well- maybe other villains will realize what a threat the party is and move to react?I don't see how the heroes being good at what they do coming at the expense of the story.&nbsp; It just means the story changes.&nbsp; Which is the expected result for player actions, isn't it?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="James Gasik, post: 8579873, member: 6877472"] Well in the instance of SUPER RANGER, I felt a playtest session, not a real campaign in the slightest, was the best opportunity to prove my point. We were stress testing a new format for adventures, after all. It ended up with a string of easy encounters, a hard one, and a TPK (too...many...trolls...). Now as far as narratively important combats, I'm going to state that first, I don't super optimize. My last 5e character was a multiclassed High Elf Arcane Cleric/Wizard, and I was keeping my levels even (basically, he was a rebuild of my old 3e character, who wasn't terribly optimized either). I make characters, not robots (unless they ARE robots, of course). I try to match the level of competency of the other players as best I can, but I'm not looking to outshine people with greater mechanical knowledge. As a DM myself, nothing wrecks a game faster than an unbalanced party. Except maybe a Deck of Many Things. It's just hard to explain "this is how the game is" to someone who thinks a Hybrid Blackguard/Assassin is somehow the bleeding edge of CharOp without showing them, and I thought a game with no real stakes was the best time to do that. Now, moving on, no plan goes according to plan. Enemies can sometimes be taken out with luck, or players for that matter. I don't see everyone playing on the same level, working to support each other, to achieve greater success through synergy as a problem. Too many tables are just "four or five random guys on an adventure". If everyone is playing the best they can, how can that be wrong? So the monster the DM thought was a super epic enemy died? It's not like he doesn't have more chances to challenge the party. It's not like there can't be narrative consequences as well- maybe other villains will realize what a threat the party is and move to react? I don't see how the heroes being good at what they do coming at the expense of the story. It just means the story changes. Which is the expected result for player actions, isn't it? [/QUOTE]

Verification