|
Staltran posted:I never played 4e, so there was also 1 (one) level three solo, which was in a setting book? Then one more solo at fourth level, in an adventure named for that monster? One MM level 5 solo, which most parties are unlikely to want to fight (Unicorn in 5e)? Then zero level 6 or 7 solos, three level 8, zero level 9, and then from level 10 onwards there's a lot? I checked earlier - there's two level 3s, two level 4s, one each at 5 and 6, then two 7s, two 8s, and two 9s. Which isn't as many as 4e (which had five Monster Manuals to pull from by the end of its lifespan), but it's a fair spread! It's also super easy to just add 2/day legendary resistance and 3/round legendary actions to any creature, because they're generic mechanics designed to be modular on top of an existing statblock.
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2023 14:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 10:53 |
|
|
Regardless of edition D&D has always had this weird tension between being a powergamer-friendly dungeon looter where you roll dice to overcome numbers, and being a roleplay-amenable system. Other tabletop games (7th Sea, etc) handle this combination much, much better and are also much more pleasant to play as both a player and a GM.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2023 20:45
|
|
|
SKULL.GIF posted:Regardless of edition D&D has always had this weird tension between being a powergamer-friendly dungeon looter where you roll dice to overcome numbers, and being a roleplay-amenable system. Other tabletop games (7th Sea, etc) handle this combination much, much better and are also much more pleasant to play as both a player and a GM. This is the point where the D&D defender screams “Stormwind fallacy!” But you’re not wholly wrong. I wouldn’t say the issue is the dice-rolling per se so much as the focus on (a weirdly specific model of) combat and treasure-hunting, which has a weirdly narrowing effect on the kind of stories D&D can tell, despite it being so much better known/more popular than other RPGs that it’s seen as a universal-ish system by default.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2023 21:37
|
|
|
NameHurtBrain posted:4E is the only edition that lets me yell at people as a primary mechanic and use the Barbarian as my standard attack I know you meant "as a leader" kinda way, but it did conjure the image of you just yeeting the barbarian at people regularly.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2023 21:41
|
|
|
Gun Jam posted:I know you meant "as a leader" kinda way, but it did conjure the image of you just yeeting the barbarian at people regularly. Well does granting charge attacks or forced movement count because that is for sure how I started fights as a 4e leader
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2023 21:49
|
|
|
Android Blues posted:I checked earlier - there's two level 3s, two level 4s, one each at 5 and 6, then two 7s, two 8s, and two 9s. Which isn't as many as 4e (which had five Monster Manuals to pull from by the end of its lifespan), but it's a fair spread! As far as I can tell one of those level 3s is an NPC from an adventure, as is one of the level 4s. The other level 3 is from Theros, though I suppose Fleecemane Lions are easy enough to integrate anywhere. The other level 4 is the Thessalhydra from Hunt for the Thessalhydra. The level 5 is a celestial as I mentioned earlier, so pretty unlikely to be an enemy. The CR6 and CR7 legendary monsters from Saltsmarsh didn't show on my 5etools search for some reason, so that's two I missed. Also I the Reduced-Threat Aboleth showed as CR10, but honestly that's digging the bottom of the barrel anyway. Not sure what the CR9s you mean are—I see a specific Tiefling, two specific Beholders, one specific human, and one... avatar of a god or something from an adventure? And of course you can make your homebrew legendary monsters.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2023 22:06
|
|
|
Staltran posted:As far as I can tell one of those level 3s is an NPC from an adventure, as is one of the level 4s. The other level 3 is from Theros, though I suppose Fleecemane Lions are easy enough to integrate anywhere. The other level 4 is the Thessalhydra from Hunt for the Thessalhydra. The level 5 is a celestial as I mentioned earlier, so pretty unlikely to be an enemy. The CR6 and CR7 legendary monsters from Saltsmarsh didn't show on my 5etools search for some reason, so that's two I missed. Also I the Reduced-Threat Aboleth showed as CR10, but honestly that's digging the bottom of the barrel anyway. Not sure what the CR9s you mean are—I see a specific Tiefling, two specific Beholders, one specific human, and one... avatar of a god or something from an adventure? I'm probably seeing less than you on the 9s, then! This is actually a pretty similar number of legendary monsters to how many solos 4e offered. Monster Manual 1 has one solo monster per character level starting at 3rd, and Monster Manual 2 and 3 have a couple less than that. I never read/owned the two Monster Vault books that came out post-Essentials, but I know for years if you wanted a low level solo monster you were homebrewing or using one of the young <x> dragons from MM1 - and then a lot of the higher level solos were just variations on the same dragon template, with Frightful Presence, Bloodied Breath, and a breath weapon that did a slightly different status effect on a per dragon basis. If you wanted a campaign that wasn't about fighting a series of progressively larger dragons, for the first few years you were stuck with homebrew monsters and digging through the magazines WotC used to publish. 4e's monster design was good, I liked it, but I ran into issues all the time trying to find interesting monsters at the right levels. The monsters with cool mechanics were mostly in paragon tier, which is also where the HP and damage math broke and players started to fall behind monster HP totals. You often needed to do a little tweaking to fix that stuff - it didn't get really airtight until Monster Manual 3.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2023 22:32
|
|
|
sebmojo posted:you look at the words that say 'unaffected by non magic weapons' and don't put them as a challenge for your party without magic weapons People are very bad at this in practice, for a lot of reasons, not least of which is that a lot of TPK abilities are a single line buried in the middle of a statblock, not an intuitive part of a monster's shtick. Also, abilities that functionally never gets used -- "Well of course I wouldn't throw this monster that can only be hurt by magic weapons against a party without magic weapons" -- are loving garbage best assigned to the trashbin of history. It is legit only bad for the game. Old Kentucky Shark fucked around with this message at 23:56 on Jul 26, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2023 23:34
|
|
|
Old Kentucky Shark posted:People are very bad at this in practice, for a lot of reasons, not least of which is that a lot of TPK abilities are a single line buried in the middle of a statblock, not an intuitive part of a monster's shtick. that seems a little hyperbolic. anyway, on googling, and i see this was mentioned before - the intellect devourer isn't even immune? so we're talking about just doing half damage with ordinary weapons? so it takes 42 rather than 21 if you don't use a single spell or magical attack? so two rounds rather than one? legendary indeed. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jd3-2AFc0Us&t=27s
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2023 00:30
|
|
|
Android Blues posted:Healing Surges are in there pretty much to the letter, a lot of iconic class abilities like Warlock's Curse and Hunter's Mark are in there, encounter powers are in there, etc. They just switched to legacy names for a bunch of that stuff and (almost depressingly) this neutralised the consternation about it. Only for spellcasters though. Martial characters get jack.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2023 00:41
|
|
|
Old Kentucky Shark posted:People are very bad at this in practice, for a lot of reasons, not least of which is that a lot of TPK abilities are a single line buried in the middle of a statblock, not an intuitive part of a monster's shtick. Again, there are plenty of ways that you can impliment that which make its immunity useful as a plot thing while still keeping it low level. Here are like two or three off the top of my head: Your low-level party hears about a powerful magic sword in a dungeon. However the dungeon is home to a 'great evil' and only the sword can slay it. (Or other magical weapons but villagers don't know that poo poo.) You now have a dungeon they can explore with a prize at the end but a dangerous enemy who stalks the halls and you create various ways for them to avoid/misdirect/escape from the monster and when they get to the end there's a magic weapon (or multiple weapons) which they can then use to slay the creature they were fighting. This enemy is being used as a watchdog by some evil wizard and it it is blocking the most obvious path into their tower. Your players can then try to come up with another path or find some way to defeat or incapacitate it so they can get past. The fact it can't be easily dispatched means players need to be clever if they want to go the most direct route. The players are assisting a hunting party of some sort and their job is to keep other enemies distracted while a potentially disposable NPC fends off the creature. You can even have the NPC basically destined to fail and then give a character a Big drat Hero Moment by allowing them to grab his magical weapon and finish off the creature. If a monster has a powerful party killing move then the DM can build an encounter around it. If the DM didn't realize it has that then you can just not use it or come up with ways to make it feel threatening without actually pulling the trigger. D&D isn't a video game. You have literally limitless options how to make an interesting concept, and it feels like the big objection that keeps coming up isn't "This is badly designed" but "If a DM is lazy and just picks a monster out of a hat it can do this thing" as if that isn't a sign of a poo poo DM? ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 00:48 on Jul 27, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2023 00:44
|
|
|
Yeah I don't think its a big deal. It's the DM's job to design an experience that's good for their players. No good DM is going to randomly throw something at players that is likely to TPK the party without giving them means to do something about it. Unless that's the experience your group wants I guess. So in most cases that means not throwing one of these at a low level party or maybe involving it as some puzzle challenge as mentioned. Or it's part of some storytelling or whatever in service of a larger plot, etc. Everything in D&D is a tool that can be used to some effect and the more tools available the better. It's a collaborative and hopefully good faith effort you know? If you have a DM that is just constantly wiping out the party with random inappropriate encounters for no reason then you need a new DM. No amount of system changes or having certain monsters in game or not will fix that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2023 00:54
|
|
|
Good GMs are made, not born, and it helps if you give them a robust set of tools to create good encounters with. 4e’s XP budgets were just so much easier to work with.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2023 01:01
|
|
|
JuniperCake posted:Yeah I don't think its a big deal. The thing is that D&D 4e and Pathfinder 2e don’t have this problem very often, and other games that rely on the GM’s judgment to keep threats appropriate (e.g., GURPS) are at least honest enough to admit this instead of tricking novice GMs with a CR system.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2023 01:06
|
|
|
One of the most enjoyable D&D 3E campaigns I've had was a Diablo-style romp through a procedurally generated dungeon. Each room's contents were determined via d100 rolls on DMG tables, and whenever the party levelled up, the next room would contain the stairs to the next floor.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2023 01:15
|
|
|
Disintegrate. Gust of wind.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2023 01:19
|
|
|
I mean if you're a well-meaning GM and you accidentally throw a TPK beast at your players, just... don't do the TPK thing? Oh no the brain eater can kill the warrior in two turns and there's nothing the party can do to stop it, um, it goes into a frenzy and jumps at Johnny Goodsaves instead! What, no one has a weapon that can scratch the were-thingummy? Your ranger spots a patch of wild belladonna, hack it up and your weapons will be coated with juice that overcomes its resistance! It's obviously a fault, but it's not going to derail a whole campaign unless you let it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2023 01:21
|
|
|
I dropped some ghost enemy at my players at random for a spooky encounter, didn't notice the possession ability at first, and when I did notice it I just decided not to use it. Similarly if you randomly throw lycans at the party and they for whatever reason refused to trip over the silvered weapons placed in their path, maybe let their weapons do 1/4 damage or 1/2 damage, make them not fully transformed/weakaned lycans?
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2023 01:32
|
|
|
Yeah to be clear by good DM I wasn't referring to an experienced one but rather one that actually wants people to have a good time and to play a fun campaign. And not one that gets pleasure out of finding ways to dick over the party and arbitrarily kill everyone or whatever. If everyone's on the same page it's not too hard to work around issues in the system like that. Not saying that it couldn't be better but stuff like this is not a huge deal unless the DM makes it one.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2023 01:44
|
|
|
Zulily Zoetrope posted:I mean if you're a well-meaning GM and you accidentally throw a TPK beast at your players, just... don't do the TPK thing? Oh no the brain eater can kill the warrior in two turns and there's nothing the party can do to stop it, um, it goes into a frenzy and jumps at Johnny Goodsaves instead! What, no one has a weapon that can scratch the were-thingummy? Your ranger spots a patch of wild belladonna, hack it up and your weapons will be coated with juice that overcomes its resistance! Yeah, this is what happened to me when I ran 3E, infamously an edition with some CR issues. I, a novice DM, threw a Mummy at my level 3 party. It's a CR 3 creature, should be fine, right? Obviously, given that in 3.0, the Mummy Rot save is loving DC20 and requires Remove Disease to get rid of, a 3rd level spell that parties don't get access to normally until level 5, they got Mummy Rot and were going to die within a week. So rather than just... let them all die, I introduced some NPC healers who were willing to heal the disease if they did a sidequest for them. Is it bad that the mummy is a completely unfair challenge to a level 3 party and marked as CR 3? Obviously, yes. in 3.5 they made it CR 5 and lowered the DC for the save by 4. But even in the case of a novice DM who couldn't see that the monster was going to be an issue, it's not instantly game ending if the DM tries to compensate for it like, at all.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2023 01:58
|
|
|
Parahexavoctal posted:Disintegrate. Gust of wind.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2023 02:52
|
|
|
it's not an insoluble problem but the complaint was "this isn't well designed"
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2023 08:08
|
|
|
Taciturn Tactician posted:Yeah, this is what happened to me when I ran 3E, infamously an edition with some CR issues. I, a novice DM, threw a Mummy at my level 3 party. It's a CR 3 creature, should be fine, right? Obviously, given that in 3.0, the Mummy Rot save is loving DC20 and requires Remove Disease to get rid of, a 3rd level spell that parties don't get access to normally until level 5, they got Mummy Rot and were going to die within a week. So rather than just... let them all die, I introduced some NPC healers who were willing to heal the disease if they did a sidequest for them. Is it bad that the mummy is a completely unfair challenge to a level 3 party and marked as CR 3? Obviously, yes. in 3.5 they made it CR 5 and lowered the DC for the save by 4. But even in the case of a novice DM who couldn't see that the monster was going to be an issue, it's not instantly game ending if the DM tries to compensate for it like, at all. The slightly paradoxical effect is that the story you described is really cool. A follow-up sidequest to heal from a deadly disease is way more interesting and fun than what would have happened if the mummy was well-designed, i.e. party kills a boring CR3 monster and finds a couple scrolls and some gold. Perhaps the real issue is with the stat block format and with lumping raw stats and weird/unique abilities together? Maybe the CR numbers should be explicitly only used to convey DPS/toughness - i.e. anything that can in principle be defeated via attrition and a lot of healing potions - and there should be a separate box for special abilities that, depending on the PCs and the environment, can be anything from useless to unbeatable.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2023 08:41
|
|
|
NihilCredo posted:Perhaps the real issue is with the stat block format and with lumping raw stats and weird/unique abilities together? Maybe the CR numbers should be explicitly only used to convey DPS/toughness - i.e. anything that can in principle be defeated via attrition and a lot of healing potions - and there should be a separate box for special abilities that, depending on the PCs and the environment, can be anything from useless to unbeatable. Yeah, this would be good, because plot points like that are things you're gonna want to improvise on and also they're things that you can improvise on. What I want from a book of pre-statted monsters is the ability to pick and mix a bunch of enemies to make an interesting and fun combat encounter without needing to fully understand the ins and outs of each one, because game balance is a thing that's much harder to improvise.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2023 10:20
|
|
|
Yeah. Puzzle, consequence, and extra-risky monsters are awesome. But they need to be labelled as such, and it can't just seamlessly slot into the standard CR system.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2023 10:40
|
|
|
Dr Pepper posted:Only for spellcasters though. Martial characters get jack. Well, not really. 4e's Second Wind and Action Points are Fighter class features in 5e, and a bunch of Fighter subclasses get encounter powers that refresh on a short rest. The Battlemaster Fighter gets four encounter powers per short rest from 3rd level, which is more than an equivalent 4e Fighter would have gotten! Rogue subclasses tend to get what would have been utility powers in 4e, shifty movement and charming enemies with skill checks and giving allies Advantage, except they're just at-will powers instead of per encounter - a lot of them are exactly "here's a utility encounter power from 4e, but it's slightly stronger and at-will". The Cunning Action feature Rogues get baked in also allows you to minor action move, hide or shift every turn - in 4e hiding was a free action, but minor action move and shift were separate utility powers you had to pick and could only use once per fight. Sneak Attack scaling's a lot better, too! Fighter and Rogue also have subclasses that give them spellcasting, if you're set on that. In 3.5e this was something you needed to multiclass to do and only the Rogue's Arcane Trickster was any good (even then...), but in 5e it's just an option you can take while staying in martial class levels.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2023 11:16
|
|
|
The Bee posted:Yeah. Puzzle, consequence, and extra-risky monsters are awesome. But they need to be labelled as such, and it can't just seamlessly slot into the standard CR system. Yeah, for sure. Math-bounded systems are really good and that has to be the foundation for any Big Book of Monsters, but if you're making a monster with a unusual ability that's particularly threatening or risky, it should a) probably have someone do damage per round equivalences for its special abilities and factor that into the CR and b) come with a big warning placard and a few paragraphs of suggestions for how to use it in a way that's actually fun. The intellect devourer is a great example of how not to do this!
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2023 11:27
|
|
|
There's a lot of Pathfinder adventures that have ghosts/enemies with other special abilities at about level 1 or 2, before most parties can deal with them. The more recent ones have gotten better, but those older ones are still pretty popular.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2023 16:22
|
|
|
Fire is a monster-hunting staple for a reason. A humble torch might deal only a couple points of damage, but even the threat of it can be enough to drive off a monster and make it seek easier pickings.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2023 17:26
|
|
|
seaborgium posted:There's a lot of Pathfinder adventures that have ghosts/enemies with other special abilities at about level 1 or 2, before most parties can deal with them. The more recent ones have gotten better, but those older ones are still pretty popular. Don't you feel like a good story should have a threat physically beyond you, but finding tools and information and creativity lets you beat it? There's a tension between balanced gameplay and narrative that make winnable encounters get boring.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2023 19:17
|
|
|
Some of my favorite rpg sessions/campaigns haven't had a single winnable encounter in them. The biggest problem with D&D, imo, is that most good stories have quite a lot of fail-forward and D&D (along with many other pen and paper systems) intrinsically just don't support that sort of thing - there's no real space for battles intended to be "partial victories" at best, and when you introduce them (with things like the Mummy's Curse situation mentioned earlier) people get mad about it because the game has conditioned them to believe anything less than a complete victory is bad game design. Edit: This is imo the big benefit of PBTA systems, even bad ones like Dungeon World, in that it's sort of the ongoing assumption. GlyphGryph fucked around with this message at 21:37 on Jul 27, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2023 19:32
|
|
|
The Bee posted:Yeah. Puzzle, consequence, and extra-risky monsters are awesome. But they need to be labelled as such, and it can't just seamlessly slot into the standard CR system. Yeah this was basically my thinking- older D&D would put a couple of asterisks on the HD of monsters with special attacks/defenses for the purposes of various calculations and it's a good reminder that "this monster has some extra stuff that makes it more challenging." So I think that would be a perfectly traditional solution to the problem.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2023 20:13
|
|
|
ikanreed posted:Don't you feel like a good story should have a threat physically beyond you, but finding tools and information and creativity lets you beat it? The problem is how often Monster Manuals are so bad at this. A proper Monster Hunting system requiring creativity, research, and shameless exploitation of weaknesses could be really cool! But a poorly collated index and awful systems for resolving anything but Kill or Be Killed make that way harder than it should be in D&D. And that's before getting to adventuring day math, where you need to have your filler goblin fights of obvious outcome before getting to the fun part.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2023 21:04
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Some of my favorite rpg sessions/campaigns haven't had a single winnable encounter in them. The biggest problem with D&D, imo, is that most good stories have quite a lot of fail-forward and D&D (along with many other pen and paper systems) intrinsically just don't support that sort of thing - there's no real space for battles intended to be "partial victories" at best, and when you introduce them (with things like the Mummy's Curse situation mentioned earlier) people get mad about it because the game has conditioned them to believe anything less than a complete victory is bad game design. I think you can do this but on a larger scale; like give the players two choices; the choice they didn't take has a different set of consequences that they potentially have to deal with. Like a version of Morton's Fork; in a battle maybe there could be functionally two buttons and mechanically they're only able to really press one. Which can take the form of there being two monsters, when one dies the other decides to escape to harass the party at a later date.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2023 22:39
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Some of my favorite rpg sessions/campaigns haven't had a single winnable encounter in them. The biggest problem with D&D, imo, is that most good stories have quite a lot of fail-forward and D&D (along with many other pen and paper systems) intrinsically just don't support that sort of thing - there's no real space for battles intended to be "partial victories" at best, and when you introduce them (with things like the Mummy's Curse situation mentioned earlier) people get mad about it because the game has conditioned them to believe anything less than a complete victory is bad game design. Yeah, it's hard to do this in D&D and definitely always has been. In my current campaign I recently ran a "pirates kidnapping dignitaries" combat where the players couldn't possibly defeat all the pirates and had to focus on saving as many of the NPCs as possible, so there's stuff you can do, but this is all DM legwork and 5e doesn't give you many resources for stuff like that. A lot of it's just storytelling experience, and if you have that you can spin up cool conflicts even if the system doesn't give you loads of guidance on doing so. PbtA basically yeah, does a lot of that legwork for you. Good PbtA is dynamite and if you follow its rules you'll get a story, no questions asked. So many PbtA hacks, though, are frustrating in that they forget narrative movement and moves serving genre and instead try to structure moves that simulate every action you could physically take - my pet peeve is variations on Read a Situation that just have a list of things to spot and no narrative movement baked in, so players start every scene by rolling a move that doesn't drive the action forward. And, yeah, of course, Dungeon World's Defy Danger, perhaps the worst PbtA move ever printed.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2023 22:51
|
|
|
What are some good ttrpgs where you aren't expected to win? Or generally expected to lose where this is compelling? Aside from call of cthulu which I imagine falls under that umbrella but I assume it also isn't combat heavy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2023 23:28
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:What are some good ttrpgs where you aren't expected to win? Or generally expected to lose where this is compelling? Aside from call of cthulu which I imagine falls under that umbrella but I assume it also isn't combat heavy. Any PbtA system definitely expects you to lose a lot, to the point where even a lot of "victories" are really losses in narratively interesting ways if played right. Paranoia is an old game but definitely one where generally expecting to lose any given encounter (whether it be physical or social) was pretty true. My Life With Master is one of my favorites from back in the day and was played with the outcome predetermined (that outcome being "everyone dies horribly"). There was also another one, a heist one I think? Where the default assumption was that you'd gently caress things up at some point and then it was basically an attempt to survive the crash with the best possible outcome from there on out. Can't remember what it was called, I only played it once, but that was fun. I think Monster Hearts might have some elements of it? I've not actually played the game though, so I don't know There aren't a lot of them I'm aware of, but I've built the vast majority of games I've hosted with custom systems I design from scratch and I do find building around that idea leads to compelling outcomes. I think most ttrpgs are built around a kind of power fantasy, though, so it makes sense, but I've always preferred tragedies or at least stories where things progressively get worse until you get out the other side. GlyphGryph fucked around with this message at 23:51 on Jul 27, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2023 23:44
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:There was also another one, a heist one I think? Where the default assumption was that you'd gently caress things up at some point and then it was basically an attempt to survive the crash with the best possible outcome from there on out. Can't remember what it was called, I only played it once, but that was fun. I t honk you're thinking of Fiasco and yes indeed, that one is a blast.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2023 00:02
|
|
|
Oh man, Paranoia is a good one. I've only played one session and I didn't really understand the rules, but I ended it by accidentally blowing up the shuttle between missions, with the entire party on board, and the GM thought I did it on purpose and begrudgingly awarded me a big pile of secret points. Good times.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2023 00:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 10:53 |
|
|
ikanreed posted:Don't you feel like a good story should have a threat physically beyond you, but finding tools and information and creativity lets you beat it? But the problem is when the game is lying to you, the GM, about what a fair encounter is. A GM can build however they want, but if you put in a few monsters that sound reasonable and end up chaos dunking the party, well... That sounds like a system problem.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2023 00:25
|
|
