Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="ExploderWizard" data-source="post: 4779772" data-attributes="member: 66434">Nice avatar<img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />&nbsp;I bolded the part I would like to discuss in more detail. &nbsp;I would say that the truth of that statement would depend on the rewards system being used in a given game. In an old OD&amp;D/Basic/1E game the primary motivation was the acquisition of treasure. If a monster or group of monsters were spotted, thier capabilities unknown, the typical party would not be so quick to engage unless there was reason to believe the reward was worth the risk. Monsters without treasure were avoided like the plague. If such creatures could be communicated with, without them becoming too hostile then a parley might take place to see if the creature knows anything of value.&nbsp;Newer editions load up XP gained for defeating monsters making the testing through combat method more rewarding for players. Why parley with a big inflated bag of walking XP? Encounters that a sensible party might seek to avoid in a sandbox environment are sought out because the reward IS the monster. A tougher critter just means more XP. This means that if the party thinks they have any chance in the fight they will stick it out for the long haul.&nbsp;Add that factor to the generally longer time it takes to play out a combat in 4E and you can see why the players would look to engage in one hard slugfest that would take as much table time as 2 or 3 easy fights but provide more than twice the XP.&nbsp;Once monsters stop looking like hot dogs and hamburgers to XP starved players you will see a decrease in thier willingness to enter dangerous/grindy long fights.<img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="ExploderWizard, post: 4779772, member: 66434"] Nice avatar:) I bolded the part I would like to discuss in more detail. I would say that the truth of that statement would depend on the rewards system being used in a given game. In an old OD&D/Basic/1E game the primary motivation was the acquisition of treasure. If a monster or group of monsters were spotted, thier capabilities unknown, the typical party would not be so quick to engage unless there was reason to believe the reward was worth the risk. Monsters without treasure were avoided like the plague. If such creatures could be communicated with, without them becoming too hostile then a parley might take place to see if the creature knows anything of value. Newer editions load up XP gained for defeating monsters making the testing through combat method more rewarding for players. Why parley with a big inflated bag of walking XP? Encounters that a sensible party might seek to avoid in a sandbox environment are sought out because the reward IS the monster. A tougher critter just means more XP. This means that if the party thinks they have any chance in the fight they will stick it out for the long haul. Add that factor to the generally longer time it takes to play out a combat in 4E and you can see why the players would look to engage in one hard slugfest that would take as much table time as 2 or 3 easy fights but provide more than twice the XP. Once monsters stop looking like hot dogs and hamburgers to XP starved players you will see a decrease in thier willingness to enter dangerous/grindy long fights.;) [/QUOTE]

Verification