3 ms·

Great article, I'd like to see several pairs of pen and paper RPG groups with identical characters attempt the same pre-built adventure with one group employing

Great article, I'd like to see several pairs of pen and paper RPG groups with identical characters attempt the same pre-built adventure with one group employing the strategy outlined and see which group is more successful.

aidenn0 5y ago
Alternatively, I see this as an anti-rulebook for GMs. Many players will be actively trying to minimize risk, so the GM needs to make the PP a losing proposition at least some of the time to keep things interesting: > When the costs of waiting are low. Add some form of urgency. This is particularly important in systems like D&D 5e where the party can restore limited resources by literally doing nothing (short and long rests). If there is no urgency, the party has no rational reason to not spend 8 hours resting after every encounter. > When preserving optionality is a priority. Not sure how to apply this one... [edit] Maybe if you convince the party they are "safe" they will think it's okay to use up their stock of a renewable resource. > When the potential costs of a risk are far greater than the cost of preventative action. It needs to cost some amount of resources that the party cares about to take precautionary measures, or else they will prepare for everything. In D&D style worlds, characters with a large bag of holding and a king's ransom in treasure will invest in many niche preventative measures. Even worse, many groups will not pay much attention to the encumbrance rules, making the bag-of-holding unnecessary. > When alternatives are available. You don't need to railroad groups to make alternatives unavailable. Putting obstacles in their paths that require either risk or using up a limited resource will circumscribe options. They can try to bluff their way past a chokepoint (risk), fight through it (risk), call in a favor (resource) or teleport past it (resource).

aidenn0 5y ago

Alternatively, I see this as an anti-rulebook for GMs. Many players will be actively trying to minimize risk, so the GM needs to make the PP a losing proposition at least some of the time to keep things interesting: > When the costs of waiting are low. Add some form of urgency. This is particularly important in systems like D&D 5e where the party can restore limited resources by literally doing nothing (short and long rests). If there is no urgency, the party has no rational reason to not spend 8 hours resting after every encounter. > When preserving optionality is a priority. Not sure how to apply this one... [edit] Maybe if you convince the party they are "safe" they will think it's okay to use up their stock of a renewable resource. > When the potential costs of a risk are far greater than the cost of preventative action. It needs to cost some amount of resources that the party cares about to take precautionary measures, or else they will prepare for everything. In D&D style worlds, characters with a large bag of holding and a king's ransom in treasure will invest in many niche preventative measures. Even worse, many groups will not pay much attention to the encumbrance rules, making the bag-of-holding unnecessary. > When alternatives are available. You don't need to railroad groups to make alternatives unavailable. Putting obstacles in their paths that require either risk or using up a limited resource will circumscribe options. They can try to bluff their way past a chokepoint (risk), fight through it (risk), call in a favor (resource) or teleport past it (resource).