Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mirrorrorrim" data-source="post: 8991528" data-attributes="member: 7040132">Thanks for calling out that perspective. I misspoke. I agree that weapon-based combat is not deeply dynamic. I agree that encounter design can be better at advising how the DM can offer better dynamism.Currently, the game relies on the DM to introduce dynamic options, and not all DMs do (I've been that DM at times who has had to focus on the narrative over the fiddly bits). I think it is because the rules aren't good at advising how to use the options they do offer, and those options can be more robust. I think they can be better tools. That is why I say I would like well designed player dynamics alongside better-designed DM options. Applied together, they have the chance of creating more dynamic encounters if people want to opt into it. (Some people don't like the fiddly bits and prefer describing things with more theater of the mind, and that is ok too. But both styles should be supported.)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mirrorrorrim, post: 8991528, member: 7040132"] Thanks for calling out that perspective. I misspoke. I agree that weapon-based combat is not deeply dynamic. I agree that encounter design can be better at advising how the DM can offer better dynamism. Currently, the game relies on the DM to introduce dynamic options, and not all DMs do (I've been that DM at times who has had to focus on the narrative over the fiddly bits). I think it is because the rules aren't good at advising how to use the options they do offer, and those options can be more robust. I think they can be better tools. That is why I say I would like well designed player dynamics alongside better-designed DM options. Applied together, they have the chance of creating more dynamic encounters if people want to opt into it. (Some people don't like the fiddly bits and prefer describing things with more theater of the mind, and that is ok too. But both styles should be supported.) [/QUOTE]

Verification