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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="hawkeyefan" data-source="post: 7190308" data-attributes="member: 6785785">But then why not simply narrate the travel? If establishing that a bunch of encounters happen to the PCs along the road to the capital really breaks verisimilitude, then simply do not have that many encounters. Or simply skip them all and narrate the trip.So, the PCs spend a week in the Shire and then a week in Mordor. We all know where more encounters will happen. So the question is, if you don't want the Shire to seem like a dangerous place, why have any encounters there at all?Unless of course, crumpets and elevensies are considered encounters. This is a fair point...I don't know if I entirely agree with it, but I get it. This is why I'm saying that such trivial travel should be narrated. Save any and all encounters for areas where more than one per day is likely. This is of course if you don't want to alter the mechanics in another way to achieve what you want.I agree I'm taking it too far...we all are. My point is that the mechanics are meant to support the fiction. So once I establish the fiction for my game, I shouldn't choose to use mechanics that disrupt the fiction. If I do, it's on me...not the mechanics themselves. But to look at it another way of taking things too far...at what point does verisimilitude take a back seat to the fact that we're playing a game? My players would rather have encounters and roll some dice than to marvel at the believable ecology of the Northlands.Which is why I said earlier that the impact of encounter frequency on worldbuilding is not as great as many are making it out to be. Or at least, it need not be.</blockquote>

Verification