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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Imaro" data-source="post: 7194208" data-attributes="member: 48965">If the world was built beforehand then there is no impact on it from encounters... if anything the encounters are impacted by my worldbuilding, which is exactly how I feel it should be.  Yes I limit encounter types... though I'd disagree with your attempt to disparage what I do by using words like delicately, I'd lean more towards...logically.  I make sure the encounters I choose fit where they are in the world... don't you?  Doesn't everyone take their world into account when designing their encounters? So yes I explicitly take my world into account when designing my encounters to eliminate absurd worldbuilding implications that can arise when one gives it no consideration while designing encounters.  Otherwise as I said before I could end up with sharks atop mountain peaks and dire wolves in the middle of the ocean.  What I don't do is let the encounters inform worldbuilding... how do you even do that unless your world doesn't exist beforehand? Well just a few pages ago you seemed to think that doing it period was outright impossible...And here's the nitpicking and tearing apart with hypotheticals.  Look you gave me two situations, you even defined the first.  Now ignoring the fact that it's kind of silly and unnecessary to have a days worth of encounters on the road to a dungeon that's exactly a day away...what was I accomplishing again? (They'll camp near the dungeon and be fully recharged to enter it so why not just narrate their trek and get to the dungeon??)... I took both of your exercises and created the encounters with a minimal effort.  Of course now the goalposts shift... as I predicted they would and the examples are invalid... or the animal behavior is wrong... or whatever other excuse can be formulated for why it wouldn't work... culminating in this line of discussion going to the place I originally predicted it would end up.I also have to ask do your adventurers have downtime?  Do you account for those days, weeks or months where they don't have an adventuring day?  How do you account for that in a set of world encounters with frequency based solely around the adventuring day.  Or do your adventurers go non-stop... day after day of adventuring with no down time between? It sure seems that "it can't work" is what you're trying to say.  And no, yo don't have to build a world that runs on the premise of very dangerous things being fairly common.  The pacing for adventures (the time in which the PC's are actively adventuring) does not have to set the pace for the world.  Again there can be days, weeks or even months between adventuring days, they aren't encountering things all the time... for more accurate worldbuilding you'd probably figure out the average encounters over adventuring days + downtime days...  The best for you maybe but I don't have an issue with the 3 deadly... but then I don't have an issue with using a variety of techniques either if the need or want arises.  IMO, The "best" is whatever works for your particular game.  For a casual game all those tech iques would be wasted.  For someone adept at creating encounters that fit within their world just the 3 deadlies every adventuring day might work. No... It doesn't have implications on worldbuilding for me and thus it's not a given.  You've yet to show that and proclaiming it doesn;t make it anymore true.  Downtime is the answer to the pacing mechanic for worldbuilding... unless your adveturers are fighting every single day of their lives... and then I'd agree, yeah you've created a very dangerous world(one where people and monsters  do battle continuously) otherwise it doesn't make sense.I can't believe I'm having a debate around the behavioral patterns of a non-existent animal...  Ok so we're back to the absurd again... Would a small caravan of merchants with half dozen or so armored and armed guards be pretty easy pickings for four dire wolves?  Would they be easier prey, with less risk of being hurt than say hunting a deer or even the boar in the forest?  If not why would they go out of their way to attack it?  Even large predators such as lions don't tend to actively seek out men as prey.  I'm not sayig the dire wolves wouldn't be a possible danger... I am saying that with a 24 mile or more hunting ground with their natural prey present... the threat they would pose wouldn't be this out of proportion thing that sends the town spiraling down a path where it's very construction and nature are a result of dire wolf paranoia.  No it would take adequate precautions to dissuade predators in general from attacking livestock but in the same way some men co-exist with lions (and alot more than just 4) this single encounter really wouldn't have implications on worldbuilding beyond those of generic D&D land.</blockquote>

Verification