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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Justice and Rule" data-source="post: 8236116" data-attributes="member: 6778210">Question for everyone here:When played straight (i.e. no Proficiency Without Level variant), shouldn't the threat of death be good enough not to engage with something that is too high a level? I mean, dead men tell no tales and dead PCs gain no experience (save for the final experience). Wouldn't that play closer to the classic risky sandbox?I've been in the planning stages of a more sandbox-ish campaign, and I was thinking that merely telling people "This world does not care about your backstory, your goals, or your character arc. It will kill you if you are careless." would be enough to dissuade some from thinking about it. Or maybe running an "example game" (which might be an in-universe thing of some poor bastard adventurers stumbling into something they couldn't handle) where they see how being overmatched can get them killed.Another part of that was to give XP for finding hazards, which meant that they might want to figure out where something bad was, but not necessarily engage it. Was thinking appropriate XP to maybe two levels below the threat? Same with being able to avoid a confrontation through skill rather than combat. That one is more dependent, given that sometimes the situation might deserve more XP depending on how unavoidable the confrontation was and how tough it was to resolve.Finally, also hammering down on the idea that actions beget reactions: if you kill some bandits, their crew may start looking for you, might raid your base or town in response, might ally with people you don't like, etc. One should always be careful of the enemies you make, and how you deal with them.</blockquote>

Verification