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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9120500" data-attributes="member: 6790260">As I said in the encumbrance thread, the ongoing problem here is the design structure. Encumbrance, logistics, materiel...these things very frequently exist solely in what I'll call "punitive" design, as opposed to "rewarding" design. That is, their mechanical contribution is solely that a failure to react correctly causes something undesirable to happen, as opposed to success at doing the correct thing(s) causing something desirable to happen.Rules that involve a fair amount of work simply to avoid being punished are not going to be popular. There's a pretty strong case that they are, in effect, simply creating impediments to evade. The imposition of an annoyance that must be defused lest it flower into an actual penalty one must endure.That doesn't mean it is not possible to do things differently. It just hasn't really been done that much with D&D. Instead of lamenting that people don't really like such punitive-only design, I think it would be more productive to look for new methods or mechanics which balance things out. Ways that players are rewarded for doing their due diligence when it comes to logistics and materiel, in addition to being punished for poor choices.To make up a completely off-the-wall example: in the encumbrance thread, someone showed me an alternate encumbrance rule that used drawn images for carrying capacity, with each player having a maximum of like 24 spaces, and items taking up 1, 2, or 3 spaces at a time (3 for something like a sword or shield, 1 for something like a healing potion or camp supplies.) Perhaps players could get some kind of bonus from keeping inventory spaces empty--meaning "packing light" actually has benefits, rather than merely being a lack of punishment for going over limits.Sure. That's the point. Tedium used as an attempt to discourage degenerate strategy (=to "balance powerful effects") is a bad design approach. Both this and the previous are examples of this rule of thumb in action.Er...what? The fact that people think it's a bad idea means it's a good idea? That's...curious logic, to say the least.Tedium and RP are both bad tools for discouraging players from using degenerate strategies. Because most players have a pretty high tolerance for tedium, especially if they get rewarded for doing so. Making rules that are annoying and cumbersome to use just means everyone has to wait for those things to finish being done before they get to play. How is that effective game design?</blockquote>

Verification