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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7127458" data-attributes="member: 996">There's not much more than guidelines (or 'a starting point') to any of it, really.  There is a point at which the the classes might not balance too badly with eachother, and encounters might live up to their labeling for an unremarkable party not subjected to much system mastery, and we're told that point is 6-8 encounters & 2-3 short rests between each long rest.  Nice to know, but not a prescription of the 'right' way to play the game.   I don't think it's unfair for them to ignore it, either.  If an adventure, especially one that's already calling back a classic, like CoS, for instance, doesn't evoke the kind of neat mechanical balance and reasonable level-based challenge that was completely absent from the classic game, but instead evokes the feel of that classic game, that's not exactly a problem.  Maybe it's a little off if an introductory adventure doesn't more or less follow guidelines.  :shrug:   I suppose, by the same token, that if there's nothing to prevent resting between encounters, it's not meant to be attrition-based?  DMs are free to look at an adventure, form an impression of how it 'should' be, and adjust it to be consistent, in their judgment, with that ideal.   It's probably an unrealistic expectation in the context of 5e, since the game simply isn't meant to be the same for everyone, you can't design an adventure that'll be the same for everyone.   More of their secret/infallible market research, I suppose?  The fanbase wants a game that's presented as easy-to-learn, delicately balanced, low-magic-item, TotM, &c, but doesn't want to actually play that game, just know it's there, like an historical landmark, while they play the more system-mastery rewarding AL version?;P</blockquote>

Verification