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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 9837726" data-attributes="member: 42582">For violent conflict/combat, I look at 4e D&D as the gold standard on this particular issue. It's encounter level guidelines are really reliable. It doesn't fully articulate the tier escalation (it's correct that at Heroic, Level +2 to Level +4 is pretty challenging, but at Paragon step that up by +2 and at Epic by +4 - so at Epic, level +8 is a big challenge)., but it's stable and consistent and easy to work with.Torchbearer is not too bad, because you can compare the notional dice pool sizes and get a sense of things - though I did wipe (or near-wipe) my group by way of a kill conflict with some Trollbats, who I thought would be challenging but turned out to be tougher than I'd anticipated.The only answer I can see in AW is what makes sense in the fiction. But that's a pretty unhelpful guideline (in my view) - I think there's some overlap there with my frustration at Mythic Bastionland leaving "risk" as a matter simply for the GM and play group to work out.Now I've had another thought. Prince Valiant has no more guidelines than AW. But in Prince Valiant, being hosed by a rival warband doesn't matter, because no PC dies unless the GM says so, and the GM is advised to say so only if the fictional situation really doesn't permit of anything else (an example given is falling from the highest tower of Camelot). So generally, defeat in a fight means being knocked out or taken prisoner or whatever, and that's just more grist for the mill of light-hearted Arthurian hijinks.But AW's harm system has a lot more bite to it than that.</blockquote>

Verification