Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="kbrakke" data-source="post: 7000424" data-attributes="member: 6781797">I agree whole heartedly in my games. However if someone came to a game where they had very rigid expectations about the game world (Goblin groups come in a set range of sizes, Orcs and Gnolls will never get armor better than their listed MM armor) then the notion that the party could come across a group out of line with these expectations is silly. People that also ascribe to a more strict definition of metagaming than I might also find it out of line with their fantasy of the world. As a person who believes that you can establish a world and react reasonably to player actions and abilities to create a more consistent sense of challenge&nbsp; I'm am allowing both feats and multiclassing in my hexcrawl style game (And all the players independently chose to roll for stats, every single one beating my point buy system). But I have low worries about establishing things to threaten them because I both accept that some random encounters won't be threatening at all, and that the players have the ability to seek greater challenges if they feel the area or threads they are following are beneath their ability. The villains of the world are well informed, equipped and intelligent. So your description of tearing things down to the basics then building up is precisely my intention. If you find these things to be out of line with your expectations of the game, start by removing all of them, then add back in things as you think are reasonable. Perhaps along the way you find a new way of handling it in game, or determine you're perfectly happy without it.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="kbrakke, post: 7000424, member: 6781797"] I agree whole heartedly in my games. However if someone came to a game where they had very rigid expectations about the game world (Goblin groups come in a set range of sizes, Orcs and Gnolls will never get armor better than their listed MM armor) then the notion that the party could come across a group out of line with these expectations is silly. People that also ascribe to a more strict definition of metagaming than I might also find it out of line with their fantasy of the world. As a person who believes that you can establish a world and react reasonably to player actions and abilities to create a more consistent sense of challenge I'm am allowing both feats and multiclassing in my hexcrawl style game (And all the players independently chose to roll for stats, every single one beating my point buy system). But I have low worries about establishing things to threaten them because I both accept that some random encounters won't be threatening at all, and that the players have the ability to seek greater challenges if they feel the area or threads they are following are beneath their ability. The villains of the world are well informed, equipped and intelligent. So your description of tearing things down to the basics then building up is precisely my intention. If you find these things to be out of line with your expectations of the game, start by removing all of them, then add back in things as you think are reasonable. Perhaps along the way you find a new way of handling it in game, or determine you're perfectly happy without it. [/QUOTE]

Verification