Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Pauper" data-source="post: 6963044" data-attributes="member: 17607">I think you're dealing with a self-selected population there, though -- folks who do care about numerical advantage are responding to things like the Fai Chen's trading options, but people who don't are opting out and not being counted.Based on the response at GenCon 2016, I'd say you can also support adding non-combat options like non-combat animal 'pets' and other 'flair' to the game (and, to be fair, AL is also doing this -- I only wish we could have convinced the combat-monsters not to kill the tiny bear in 05-01 before my fiancee could try an Animal Handling skill on it); the difference is that adding flair does not increase the barrier to entry for those who prefer optimization, because they can simply ignore the flair and focus on what they find fun. As optimizers get more options and make use of them, the campaign needs to 'ramp up' to challenge them, either in adventure design or at the individual table level with the DM adjusting the adventure, and players who don't care to optimize must either 'get with the program' or get out, and my experience is that many will get out. That's why I believe that adding additional optimization options to AL is ultimately a bad idea.I do appreciate that you are trying to keep the campaign fresh and interesting -- I'm just disappointed that the same old answers as from previous campaigns (let's hand out more magic items!) keep coming up, particularly when some of those old answers have already been identified as problems that helped kill those campaigns.--Pauper</blockquote>

Verification