NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JamesonCourage" data-source="post: 6110754" data-attributes="member: 6668292">The same spell would bypass the siege. Neither is important unless you make them important.I think it's less black and white than that. I know that for some players, skipping some scenes would absolutely ruin the rest of the night for them. It's a lot more grey, to me, than I think it is to you. As always, play what you like <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    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Okay, reading it over, I have a couple comments. One, if someone falls and you have to save them, it looks like a bad action movie. But, if the guy just looks walking across, then he just looks like a lame Legolas. We can both phrase this in derogatory terms. Though, of course, if he falls and dies, then it's not really like most movie scenes anymore, unless it's a comment on "how dangerous things are" or "the folly of arrogance" or something. But, of course, I don't mind him balancing here, so long as he's skilled enough.The later test and loss of resources thing doesn't resonate with me, since losing those resources could be just as relevant on their first trip. But, we don't know yet. But, even though it doesn't resonate with me, I think I get it.The trip where he let them across the treacherous lands without rolling sounds like skipping to the nomad encounter to me.The "Wet Blanket" thing I have mixed feelings on. I don't call for checks just to see what happens if my PCs fail. I call for checks to see if they fail, so that we can deal with those consequences, since we find them interesting. The "just to see what they fail" is either mischaracterizing my play style, dismissive of it, or not applicable to it.On the other hand, the "is anything at stake here?" question is a good one. One of my players is making a new character (he recently died avenging his squire), and he asked me "can I have one of my Relationships (mechanical relationship from my RPG) be a giant from the hills?" We haven't dealt with them at all yet this campaign, but I thought "does this violate the setting? No? Then sure." And I told him yes. So I think that bit is good advice.The centipede is still hazy to me from Luke's advice. His balance is not breaking the rules, as long as that person is capable of balancing. But, regardless, he fairly explicitly advises to skip the desert if it's not interesting, so the centipede to me is a fairly inconsequential point anyways. I don't think Luke Crane would say "sure, your Fighter can fly there, as long as he doesn't do that when we use the rules" unless the group was explicitly on board with that. The centipede is the same, in my view.You gave me a little bit of insight by providing Luke's further explanation, but not really in your reply to me. But, still, I found your post helpful, so thank you for that. As always, play what you like <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    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification