Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="payn" data-source="post: 8698025" data-attributes="member: 90374">Well the random monster table sounds like its bad adventure writing and not an unbalanced game. This is a long held tradition of random tables. Some folks think there should be Froghemoths that 1st level characters can encounter if they are unlucky in the draw. Smart players should run away. Thats a bit old school of an idea I think. In nu skool, random encounter tables are&nbsp; constructed with thought in that any encounter on the table makes both narrative sense, and is something that the party should be able to handle. Further, bounded accuracy makes this actually work better than it has in the past. So, I don't find this argument about 5E very compelling.Now the tweet in the OP, seems to be talking about missing rules for perceived important things. Sounds like some chafe against rulings over rules philosophy. You dont need a rule for every instance, the GM can just arbitrate it as necessary. This being seen as a weakness or imbalance, is sort of why rules over rulings was popular about 20 years ago. There certainly is a difference in playstyle here, but im unsure what it has to do with balance?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="payn, post: 8698025, member: 90374"] Well the random monster table sounds like its bad adventure writing and not an unbalanced game. This is a long held tradition of random tables. Some folks think there should be Froghemoths that 1st level characters can encounter if they are unlucky in the draw. Smart players should run away. Thats a bit old school of an idea I think. In nu skool, random encounter tables are constructed with thought in that any encounter on the table makes both narrative sense, and is something that the party should be able to handle. Further, bounded accuracy makes this actually work better than it has in the past. So, I don't find this argument about 5E very compelling. Now the tweet in the OP, seems to be talking about missing rules for perceived important things. Sounds like some chafe against rulings over rules philosophy. You dont need a rule for every instance, the GM can just arbitrate it as necessary. This being seen as a weakness or imbalance, is sort of why rules over rulings was popular about 20 years ago. There certainly is a difference in playstyle here, but im unsure what it has to do with balance? [/QUOTE]

Verification