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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="shilsen" data-source="post: 3809868" data-attributes="member: 198">Since I was speaking purely about my game, all I can tell you is what "just" right means for me. It means designing an encounter which has a significant likelihood of giving the PCs a good knock-down drag-out fight.  Most of the time, except in rare cases like ambush situations, the players do get to decide how they approach the encounter. Nothing better or worse about it for me.Odds are they have a much better chance of an easy win in the first case and are likely to be in a lot more trouble in the second.Two things are missing. One - I was describing my practice, not anyone else's (that's why the post referred to by Celebrim, who I responded to, began "Personally, as a DM..."). Second, I never mentioned the per-encounter model in my post. I was referring to the fact that resource attrition bores me personally as an approach and responding to a question about that.Who knows? Personally, I run a game which is very heavily player/PC-driven, with the players having very significant control over what they do, who they fight, what is the plotline for the game, etc. But I also like the idea of a mix of per-day and per-encounter abilities for PCs. Since what "challenging on it's own merits" means to you is irrelevant to me and my players, assuming that I am treating it as an established fact is more than a trifle presumptive. Especially since, as noted earlier in the thread, I've effectively taken death out of my game. For me, challenging on its own merits means a fight which does some damage to the PCs, makes them work for their victory and has a chance, however slim (and sometimes quite a strong one), of ending up with their defeat.See above.</blockquote>

Verification