NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Imaro" data-source="post: 7196542" data-attributes="member: 48965">Not loosing the thread just finding it harder and harder to parse what you mean and/or what you are referring to in these endless hoops and convoluted discussions to prove that some of us can't do what we've both explained and successfully done in the test cases you gave.  I was wholly aware that it was getting harder and harder for me to follow your arguments... thus... "If not I misunderstood what you were getting at." No it's an example of not picking the encounter to fit into the world you've designed... exactly what we are discussing.  I'm sorry you can't make the connection but I can't make it any simpler or exaggerate it any more so that you can.You're the one not following at this point.  I stated you could have a single deadly encounter in a safe zone and it would still be relatively safe for the majority of people travelling through it (depending on the encounter of course and since you want it to be safe you would pick something that matched the fiction of the world)... You respond with "Three. Three deadly encounters in a safe area. The entire focus of this discussion is that if you have 1 encounter, you have to have 2 more, and all of them are deadly. "... which of course begs the question why would I (and why do I have to...) put 3 encounters in a safe zone?  Why not have one there and 2 in another area?  In other words... Why am I creating an adventure day scenario in a safe zone?  This is what I mean by your convoluted exercises to prove your point.  It's like logic, choice and common sense have all been tossed out in the examples you give.  Nothing in the encounter guidelines or the adventuring day guidelines states every day must be an adventuring day or that every encounter must be in the same area.  If my PC's are sticking to a safe area I assume it's because they've made an informed choice and want to be  safe... deciding to put 3 deadly encounters in that area is unnecessary (I'd spread them out if they are leaving the safe area) and a kind of jerk move if I've established it as a safe place.Are you asking me if that's what I'd do or are you answering a question you didn't ask me?  Look you're the one whose clarifying something no one was disputing here... that's what I don't understand what are you posting a clarification for... we know, we get it and we've stuck to your parameters.  Unless now you're specifying they must all be in the same area as well??  Also, not keen on the personal jabs and I don't want to get into that type of argument so let's try to keep it classy...You haven't given any previous criteria.  You gave two set ups and I showed you with little to no time to prepare how easily it could be done.  I've told you my encounter building doesn't affect my worldbuilding but instead it's thoe other way around.  I've shown you the mechanical tools that can be used such as varying number encountered or increasing CR... and I've tried to show you that yes it does take some common sense and logical thinking to accomplish.  But it seems to me you aren't trying to see how it could be done... You've already decided it's impossible.  If I thought this was a good faith effort I might actually spend the time engaging in yet another exercise you designed to show I can't do what I've been doing but yeah, not seeing the point.Oh and just to show how your criteria gets narrower and narrower... your exercise above forces a single area (how many campaigns across multiple tiers happen in a single area??  I thought we were discussing WORLD building)... again let's look at the default expectations of the games for the tiers... because you know if we're going against those that's probably a more relevant factor than encounters on worldbuilding...Tier 1: characters are effectively apprentice adventurers.  The threats you face are relatively minor , usually posing threats to local farmsteads or villagesTier 3: You have reached a level of power that sets you high above the ordinary populace and makes them special even among adventurers... These mighty adventurers often confront threats to whole regions or continents.WHY would a tier 3 adventurer still be exploring around the same mud villages and farmsteads he did when he was an apprentice?  Why is he not out stopping continent and kingdom destroyers?    Why not?  I would assume the PC's would put roots down somewhere safe, their homes wouldn't be places where an adventuring day occurs but instead would be places that are for the most part... safe??Well then the adventure comes to them doesn't it? You don't get as powerful as a tier 3 adventurer is without gaining enemies, a reputation and loot people want.  If you're hiding on a farmstead well then they're going to come for you there if they have too...  As long as you're meeting the expectations for the tier they are in... whether through random encounters or planned (honestly as a campaign progresses I tend to lean more and more on planned since it tends to engage my players on a more personal level)... they don't have to be mobile they just need the appropriate threats they are supposed to face coming for them. Now admittedly I just don't understand why adventurers capable of defending continents  are adventuring in shanty towns and  farmsteads and it basically goes against the basic premise the game defines for tiers but hey... knock yourself out.</blockquote>

Verification