D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

[Hussar]

This is an interesting idea, if one has the right group of players. It would probably help if all those players had at least enough DMing experience to know what a vaguely-level-appropriate encounter looks like (doesn't have to be bang-on right but when someone turns in a Lich encounter for a 2nd-level party you've got a lot of work to do).

Thing is, though, IME many casual players (which we have to accept as being the vast majority of the player base) don't think about the game at all between sessions which means they're either writing up their encounters during the sessions or you're pulling teeth trying to get them submitted.

Not fond of this, though - way too meta for my liking.

That is obviously the idea. But, I think if we could ACTUALLY get something like that into the PHB or into some sort of official book, that might get it over the hump. If players are expected to contribute between sessions, and know that up front, I think it would help a lot.

As far as being too "meta", well, the whole exercise is obviously meta. And it's a way to let the players know just how reliable their own knowledge is. If there's a massive bowl of M&M's there, well, that means the DM has done all sorts of alterations. If the bowl is nearly empty...

And it becomes an interesting resource. No different than, say, Action Points or Inspiration. And because it's a group resource, there's also the tension of who gets to use it.

I'm going to pitch this idea to my players some time in the future. I hope I can get it off the ground. To be fair, the last time I tried, it fizzled. So, yeah, I do believe it's very much an uphill slog. Mostly because players have been taught to be so freaking passive.

 

[gban007]

As far as what @Micah Sweet may or may not have said, I don't care. I'm not Micah and I don't follow or remember every conversation in a thread with more than 20,000 cocomments.

I guess from my perspective, if you don't care what Micah said, why did you jump in on a response to Micah? As it stands by choosing to only read the one line response without without the context of what it was replying to, is why you thought it was attacking a preference when I dont think reading the context that it was. It is just that two differing views on home to play the game leads to one way of playing it potentially preventing one way of coming up with house rules from being used.