Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 8384266" data-attributes="member: 6801228">The major difference is this. When you set up a combat, you have devised a set space and set of rules. And those are generally not going to change, even if players utilize a new ability. But, when we discussed exploration challenges, that isn't how things went. For example, we said a Ranger couldn't get lost in their favorite terrain, they always know the route. So, in the &quot;challenge&quot; &quot;Get to Point A from Point B, without getting lost&quot; the ranger always succeeds. However, then posters challenged us, the ranger doesn't always succeed, what if there is an impassable river on that route? The challenge shifted, in direct response to the players abilities.OR, for the example of the Tiny Hut. It was said that the challenge of finding a safe place to rest was a viable challenge. We refuted saying that Tiny Hut creates a safe place to rest, wherever we happen to be. You then put forth &quot;what if you are escorting an NPC, who despite knowing the dangers and despite the players having a watch, runs into the dangerous territory?&quot; And there are two problems with this. One, it is clearly a direct DM action against the hut the way you described it. However, the second problem is more fundamental... it doesn't even change anything. You go, get the kid, then go back to resting in your Tiny Hut. It was a ritual anyways, so you can just create it again. Additionally, you hit upon a pretty serious faux pas. Have the NPC run into a clearly dangerous situation and force the party to choose between them dying or going to rescue the NPC. Sometimes this can be worked in a good manner. But more often that not it is a galling and overt action. Because the player's know you control the NPCs, and so they know you set it up so that the NPC would run into danger, to force their hand. Therefore it has to be done very very carefully, if at all. And your example wasn't careful, and was a direct response to a player ability.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Chaosmancer, post: 8384266, member: 6801228"] The major difference is this. When you set up a combat, you have devised a set space and set of rules. And those are generally not going to change, even if players utilize a new ability. But, when we discussed exploration challenges, that isn't how things went. For example, we said a Ranger couldn't get lost in their favorite terrain, they always know the route. So, in the "challenge" "Get to Point A from Point B, without getting lost" the ranger always succeeds. However, then posters challenged us, the ranger doesn't always succeed, what if there is an impassable river on that route? The challenge shifted, in direct response to the players abilities. OR, for the example of the Tiny Hut. It was said that the challenge of finding a safe place to rest was a viable challenge. We refuted saying that Tiny Hut creates a safe place to rest, wherever we happen to be. You then put forth "what if you are escorting an NPC, who despite knowing the dangers and despite the players having a watch, runs into the dangerous territory?" And there are two problems with this. One, it is clearly a direct DM action against the hut the way you described it. However, the second problem is more fundamental... it doesn't even change anything. You go, get the kid, then go back to resting in your Tiny Hut. It was a ritual anyways, so you can just create it again. Additionally, you hit upon a pretty serious faux pas. Have the NPC run into a clearly dangerous situation and force the party to choose between them dying or going to rescue the NPC. Sometimes this can be worked in a good manner. But more often that not it is a galling and overt action. Because the player's know you control the NPCs, and so they know you set it up so that the NPC would run into danger, to force their hand. Therefore it has to be done very very carefully, if at all. And your example wasn't careful, and was a direct response to a player ability. [/QUOTE]

Verification