Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 7190760" data-attributes="member: 16814">But, then aren't the judgement call on what happens to the town and the mechanics of the orc both then built on a worldbuilding assumption of what orcness is?&nbsp; And, if so, aren't we then saying that encounter building with orcs rests fundamentally on a worldbuilding assumption?&nbsp; Kind of like how all of D&amp;D rests on the core world assumptions in the DMG and also on the core world assumptions underlying popular myth and each and every MM entry?And you're absolutely correct that such a use -- encounters all the time -- is ridiculous on it's face.&nbsp; That's never been my stance, or what I've argued based up.&nbsp; I've stridently maintained my position that using 3 deadlies an adventuring day distorts things, not because you have encounters every day, but because when you do it's always deadly.&nbsp; And in 3s.&nbsp; So, if you decide to roll for encounters (or plot them) for your 10th level party walking the Nevertrouble Way, you're introducing some serious threats to a &quot;safe&quot; area.&nbsp; So, either you don't have encounters in the &quot;safe&quot; area, which is a worldbuilding choice, or you do, and now need to maybe lampshade how those deadly things got there a bit.&nbsp; Or not, if you and yours don't care.&nbsp; It seems, though, given the recent turn in wondering why you're even having such deadly encounters in safe areas, that there's at least a level of caring even among those that nominally disagree with me.I honestly, at this point, feel that there's been some major misunderstanding of what I said, and we're now all in internet arguing ruts about it.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 7190760, member: 16814"] But, then aren't the judgement call on what happens to the town and the mechanics of the orc both then built on a worldbuilding assumption of what orcness is? And, if so, aren't we then saying that encounter building with orcs rests fundamentally on a worldbuilding assumption? Kind of like how all of D&D rests on the core world assumptions in the DMG and also on the core world assumptions underlying popular myth and each and every MM entry? And you're absolutely correct that such a use -- encounters all the time -- is ridiculous on it's face. That's never been my stance, or what I've argued based up. I've stridently maintained my position that using 3 deadlies an adventuring day distorts things, not because you have encounters every day, but because when you do it's always deadly. And in 3s. So, if you decide to roll for encounters (or plot them) for your 10th level party walking the Nevertrouble Way, you're introducing some serious threats to a "safe" area. So, either you don't have encounters in the "safe" area, which is a worldbuilding choice, or you do, and now need to maybe lampshade how those deadly things got there a bit. Or not, if you and yours don't care. It seems, though, given the recent turn in wondering why you're even having such deadly encounters in safe areas, that there's at least a level of caring even among those that nominally disagree with me. I honestly, at this point, feel that there's been some major misunderstanding of what I said, and we're now all in internet arguing ruts about it. [/QUOTE]

Verification