Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Melissia wrote:

 Chongara wrote:
I mean just look at a google image search for "Necromancer", it's skulls, menacing green energy and dark robes as far as the eye can see.

If you look up the word "sorceress" you'll find images of what look like strippers holding staffs and rods with little glowy things on or near their person, that doesn't mean that every female wizard or sorcerer has to wear three leather straps, knee-high boots, and some jewelry as clothing.

Right these are all true statements and nobody is saying your Necromancers and your Necromancy has to be any one way. What I was saying is that there is a particular common image of what a Necromancer is, and in 3.P necromancy was constructed in a way that aligned with that popular conception. That they did this isn't problematic in any way, it doesn't make the design faulty or incoherent. It just means that's the design.

Now the "Common Conception" thing is true of the "Sexy Sorceress" too, but I think you're kind of taking a cheap shot here. A search for "Sorcerer" (where the images are male), doesn't pull up that kind schlock. This means that the primary thing influencing the sexy designs is the character's gender, not that they're a user of any particular set of imaginary magic powers. It's unfair to use that as a comparison point with the necromancer art because unlike women, necromancers don't exist. One of these common conceptions can be tied to actual trends that are a problem for real people, the other is just the way people see something totally imaginary.

So while it's that both the "Dark Necromancer" and "Sexy Sorceress" are common images that get played to a lot, the underlying cause for one is toxic elements in our culture, the other is just an arbitrary fantasy trope that popped up somewhere along the line. This makes the comparison kind of weak and does a disservice to the problems behind the "Sexy Sorceress" trend.

To me, arcane necromancy is Frankenstein and frogs legs.
It's more alchemy than life-force, but then you get into vampires and the life-drain stuff.

My point is that I don't care what the common idea is, as just because an idea is common, doesn't stop it from being boring and stupid anyway.

 Melissia wrote:
My point is that I don't care what the common idea is, as just because an idea is common, doesn't stop it from being boring and stupid anyway.

Well, that's that then.

Maybe you could either stop 'debating' it now or maybe start a new thread on...something?

 Melissia wrote:
My point is that I don't care what the common idea is, as just because an idea is common, doesn't stop it from being boring and stupid anyway.

We're obviously in subjective territory here again. So I mean you've clearly got a problem with the prevailing flavor of the Necromancer, I'm wondering how you'd construct your alternative. What would you change both from a narrative and mechanics stand point? What would change, what would stay the same? What changes would this drive in terms game play dynamics and more importantly tones/theme in a setting? What new sources of player engagement would you try to drive with the changes? Does necromancy have it's own theme or is just a tool to drive others? Do you feel like anything would be lost, and if not why?

(also since tone can be kind of hard to unpack via text, I'm not being snarky here. These are honest questions. You've clearly got some strong opinions here and there are often interesting ideas behind those.If anything i'm just trying to get a clear picture of how you'd build things, it might have a cool element or two I could steal.)

Same here!

I wasn't being 'evil' on purpose, but when you state your opinion as you did, well, there doesn't seem to be much left to 'debate'!

 Chongara wrote:
We're obviously in subjective territory here again. So I mean you've clearly got a problem with the prevailing flavor of the Necromancer, I'm wondering how you'd construct your alternative. What would you change both from a narrative and mechanics stand point? What would change, what would stay the same? What changes would this drive in terms game play dynamics and more importantly tones/theme in a setting? What new sources of player engagement would you try to drive with the changes? Does necromancy have it's own theme or is just a tool to drive others? Do you feel like anything would be lost, and if not why?

No, nothing would be lost-- because even with the vision I had, you can still play a skull'n'bones "hurr I like dead people" necromancer. But the addition of a wider variety allows people to play other things-- anywhere from a scholarly necromancer trying to unlock the secrets of life and death for the pure sake of knowledge, to a tribal shaman whom manipulates the life force of herself and others around her to heal the sick, put spirits to rest, and protect her village, to a necromancer-focused society that views death and undeath as just another stage of life. Right now, the common vision of evil ambitious skull-pauldrons doesn't really allow for much variety in comparison.

I actually would like to reference the Diablo series here. While the aesthetics of the Diablo 2 Necromancer were lame, the actual lore was fairly good-- an order of magic-users whom sought to maintain balance, put spirits to rest, and fight evil, and used their control over life force in order to try to achieve those goals. Similarly, the witch doctor of Diablo 3 matches the "tribal shaman" example I mentioned above as well (And is by no means the first to think of it, considering that's how necromancy is described in many cultures).

I believe, like other forms of magic, necromancy is just a tool. Certainly, I think that other tools can be used for evil-- an Evoker setting someone on fire and watching them burn to death, or a diviner using their knowledge to create insidious plots, or an enchanter using their powers to use people against what would otherwise be their will, and so on. They're tools, more than themes or prescriptions on how they're used. I'd just like to see more focus on the life force manipulation, as well as channeling both positive and negative energy (positive being capable of healing living creatures and harming undead creatures, but is NOT as good at healing as divine magic, for balance's sake), as well as some more spells or rituals that help put undead at peace, including higher-level spells capable of causing evil undead to repent and try to find peace as well.

Life force based spells could easily be things like "transfer a status effect from your ally on to yourself", or "transfer hit points from willing target A, to willing target B", to give basic examples (I haven't had time to actually construct the changes I talk of, but I hope this gives an idea). Similarly, a spell or ritual to put undead at peace could be as simple as summoning an angry ghost, and giving them the chance at getting their message across in exchange for being sent to the appropriate afterlife-- though this would of course depend on the nature of the setting in question, of course. Having control over life, death, and undeath would allow a necromancer to put evil undead in a geas to force them to not do evil, and perhaps at higher levels even gradually shift them from evil to neutral, take away the evil urges they have.

You think you can just come in here and disregard "real" D&D necromancy for some half-baked personal preference of your own???

Well -- you can because it's D&D. You can do anything you want. But as Alpharius mentioned, please start a different thread about it because you are derailing the Fifth Edition thread. Thanks.

 Manchu wrote:
You think you can just come in here and disregard "real" D&D necromancy for some half-baked personal preference of your own???

Well -- you can because it's D&D. You can do anything you want. But as Alpharius mentioned, please start a different thread about it because you are derailing the Fifth Edition thread. Thanks.

I guess to try and re-rail along those lines:

I've got my first 5th edition game coming up, with a whole bunch of half-baked ideas of my own. I'm super pumped!

Has anyone had experience running things a bunch yet? My PCs aren't building their characters ahead of time so I won't be able to play test my encounters. Most of the low level monsters released seem pretty straightforward but the DM guide still has "Work in progress" plastered all over it. I'm not sure how much I can trust the challenge guidelines as they were notoriously unreliable in a 3.P.

Any huge pitfalls I should avoid that might not readily apparent? They seem to place a lot of importance of the # of monsters in encounters. I've got something planned really earlier on that is going to put the players in front of a group of 6 Bandits. Up to 4 of these bandits can be potentially talked out of the fight before it happens under the right circumstances. I'm not really concerned if the fight is against 2 or 4 . However 6 is a pretty big group. I've downgraded their weapons just in case but I'm wondering anything else is going to need rounding off. I want this to be something of a softball difficulty-wise, but still have the PCs outnumbered if they take the shoot-first approach.

I'll have 4 PCs, for reference.

I think, as with any new game, to be ready to wing it if something goes horribly wrong. There's a reason DM's have a a screen.

(Before this goes crazy, I'm not okay with DM cheating for cheating's sake, but fixing mistakes in preparation or such is kinda necessary with a new system.)


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, if 4 bandits can be talked out of fighting, have you thought about making them cowards? Maybe if 2 go down or a leader goes down, the rest surrender?

 pretre wrote:

Also, if 4 bandits can be talked out of fighting, have you thought about making them cowards? Maybe if 2 go down or a leader goes down, the rest surrender?

This I think is a good way of doing it. If their heart really isn't in it (as being able to talk them down suggests) then they probably aren't willing to die just for a bit of gold.

So if the leader goes down or they're brought to really low hitpoints you could have them take a morale check or something to see if they run/surrender.

'Course that could be if your PCs are struggling. If they're wiping the floor with them then you could also just keep those bandits in there. They got super greedy on that particular day

I have been playing 5E basically every week since the PHB PDF came out back in June.

And I've now played a pretty wide variety of games. Just last night we had a session based on DC Comics. We fought a psychotic Arcane Trickster called the Jester (penchant for casting Tasha's Hideous Laughter) and his hyena-man henchmen and also crossed paths with the dark elf cat burglar Felina. I played Boy Wonder Grey Dixon (Human Monk with Urchin background).

Biggest takeaway on 5E monsters -- they are not slouches! I would start new players off with an encounter that you think they will easily, unquestionably win and then play it absolutely hard on them. (For example, have the enemies gang up. And don't let the players metagame battle tactics.) Once the PCs see that what looks like a breezy encounter can hurt, they should develop a healthy caution that will (a) encourage them plan and (b) encourage them to really learn how to play their characters.

 pretre wrote:
I think, as with any new game, to be ready to wing it if something goes horribly wrong. There's a reason DM's have a a screen.

(Before this goes crazy, I'm not okay with DM cheating for cheating's sake, but fixing mistakes in preparation or such is kinda necessary with a new system.)


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, if 4 bandits can be talked out of fighting, have you thought about making them cowards? Maybe if 2 go down or a leader goes down, the rest surrender?

Yes actually, good to know I might be on the right track here. To be specific the encounter works as follows:

The players will run into the bandits harassing a merchant on the road they're going down. The bandits will not make any real attempt to engage the group off the bat, they've no particular interest in picking a fight with an armed group. However knowing the players they'll take it on themselves to intervene.

If they just charge the bandits, they're in a fight with 6 of them obviously.

If they confront the bandits by a means other than just attacking them outright, the bandits are going to try and puff up and browbeat the PCs into minding their own business. With the leader being belligerent enough the players probably won't back down if only players because hate backing down to an a-hole NPC. Nothing makes a PC stick to their guns like trying to trash-talk them.

The bandits aren't particularly brave but their boss is, to use technical terms: A dick. If the PCs attempt intimidation, a DC 13 will cause 1d3-1 (Minimum 1) of the bandits to peace out - not worth it.

Two of the bandits are clearly younger members and a bit unsure about the whole thing. If the PCs notice, they can attempt to a persuasion roll to convince them to just give up on the robbery. This is a DC 14. However if the PC has the "Criminal" background the bandits will be from an offshoot of their old gang or a group they used to hang with. This makes the young bandits more disposed to listen to them, and drops the DC to 10.
If the PC trying to convince them makes a point that the law in the land is rather forgiving and particularly so when it comes to wayward youth (this true), they have advantage on the check.

In the fight, once half the bandits that started the fight are dropped (so maximum 3) any bandits that take additional damage from that point will attempt to flee. If the bandit leader gets taken down at that point or he was one of the half that was dropped initially all remaining bandits attempt to flee immediately even without taking damage. A fleeing bandit that is chased down will surrender, rather than fight to the death.

The bandit leader is the exception and being a megadouche, never flees or surrenders.

EDIT:
The bandits are as per the DM basic guide, but armed with Daggers only instead of the usual the loadout. One of them is the leader and has the usual weapons.

 Chongara wrote:


Now the "Common Conception" thing is true of the "Sexy Sorceress" too, but I think you're kind of taking a cheap shot here. A search for "Sorcerer" (where the images are male), doesn't pull up that kind schlock. This means that the primary thing influencing the sexy designs is the character's gender, not that they're a user of any particular set of imaginary magic powers. It's unfair to use that as a comparison point with the necromancer art because unlike women, necromancers don't exist. One of these common conceptions can be tied to actual trends that are a problem for real people, the other is just the way people see something totally imaginary.

So while it's that both the "Dark Necromancer" and "Sexy Sorceress" are common images that get played to a lot, the underlying cause for one is toxic elements in our culture, the other is just an arbitrary fantasy trope that popped up somewhere along the line. This makes the comparison kind of weak and does a disservice to the problems behind the "Sexy Sorceress" trend.

Funny thing, just as a slight "test" I typed "female necromancer" into Google images, and about half of the pictures were about the same as if I typed "sorceress" in... In both searches, approximately half of the images were of scantily clad, magic wielding women.

So, I'd suggest that it really has nothing to do with character "class" within a fantasy/ sci-fi RPG at all


Also, while I don't have much experience DMing, I would probably make the DC checks a TINY bit higher... Depending on the character and their scores, a roll of "not 1" may possibly pass the DC check (unless you are intentionally making this an "easy" encounter )

DC 10-15 is pretty tough for first level adventurers. That's even up that they fail.

As far as beating DCs are concerned, 5E PCs aren't going to get much better until level 5 and even then it's just a 5% increase.

The DM should set DCs based on what is reasonable to the world. Do not set low DCs to accomplish difficult tasks simply because the PCs are at low levels.

 Manchu wrote:
As far as beating DCs are concerned, 5E PCs aren't going to get much better until level 5 and even then it's just a 5% increase.

I always feel a bit odd framing things that way. I'll admit this is kind of nit-picky but:

Especially for hard things this seems like it could feel very meaningful. If you're moving from 19+ (10%) to 18+ (15%), that's a 50% increase to your chance to succeed. Advantage fudges this a bit more too, with 19+(19%) moving to 18+(28%). It might not be much on a single check but over the course of a few levels, and a handful of attempts at long-shots the person with the +1 has a much better chance at having a good track record.

If they attempt 10 such checks over some period of many sessions, the guy who needs 18+ has an 80% chance at least 1 big win. 19+ Guy only has a 65% chance of that.

This is extra true when you consider when given a set of options and one of those options is much harder to pull off, they're only going to go with the harder thing if the payoff seems bigger (or cooler). This means that the hard checks folks do choose to make are likely to be big payoffs if they work, unless you're consistently only providing one avenue forward with a limited range of results.

In the long view +1 is worth a lot in terms of getting your bad ass moment in the spotlight.

The DM should set DCs based on what is reasonable to the world. Do not set low DCs to accomplish difficult tasks simply because the PCs are at low levels.

Is this a general statement or did a particular DC mentioned kind of catch your eye a bit?

 Chongara wrote:
Especially for hard things this seems like it could feel very meaningful. If you're moving from 19+ (10%) to 18+ (15%), that's a 50% increase to your chance to succeed.

Unless you phrase it differently, of course: there is a 5% difference in chance to succeed between a 19+ and an 18+. There is quite a bit of difference between a 5% increase and a 50% increased chance. Fun with numbers.

 Ahtman wrote:

 Chongara wrote:
Especially for hard things this seems like it could feel very meaningful. If you're moving from 19+ (10%) to 18+ (15%), that's a 50% increase to your chance to succeed.

Unless you phrase it differently, of course: there is a 5% difference in chance to succeed between a 19+ and an 18+. There is quite a bit of difference between a 5% increase and a 50% increased chance. Fun with numbers.

That's my entire point. Folks generally just look at the discrete chance of success on a single roll. This is fine for analyzing a single moment but doesn't say much about how it feels over the course of a campaign, and when looking back at your track record.

Relative performance increases come when you're taking a longer view. Like if two folks are comparing and one person has 20 successes and the other has 30 that feels like a much bigger difference than 180 and 190. Not that I typically see PCs sitting down and comparing "wins" mind you, but people reflect on these things and pull out winning and losing moments to color how they perceive their experiences. That 5% increase is only really small when you were probably going to slam-dunk it anyway.

Like I said, I was kind of nit-picking. It's a minor detail in a big puzzle about building experiences. I'm not really sure making the distinction one way or the other even has all that much practical value to a GM.

Excluding that those numbers are taken in a vacuum*, I think breaking it down entirely to numbers and thinking about adventuring in terms of discreet numbers or relative performance misses the point entirely of playing an RPG.


*The guy with the 18+ could fail every time irl and the guy with the 19+ could succeed each time. How it plays out on paper doesn't always translate into actual results.

IMO the +1 to Proficiency at Level 5 feels like a big deal because Proficiency is such an important mechanic. But in terms of rolling a skill check, that +1 is still just +5% chance to succeed. And that is where the game happens.

But the main issue here is how to judge and implement DCs. DCs are about the world, not about the PCs. That is to say, DCs should not level up. This can be confusing because DCs are explained like this:

Very Easy 5
Easy 10
Medium 15
Hard 20
Very Hard 25
Nearly Impossible 30

Unfortunately, the rules don't explain the frame of reference. Is breaking into the vault equally hard for the Cleric and the Rogue? Clearly NO - the Rogue will have an easier time of it. But the DC stays the same whether the Cleric or the Rogue is trying it, which allows for the skill mechanic. So to whom or what is that scale relative?

I guess it is relative to a hypothetical NPC with 10 in every stat and no proficiencies. Mr. Average McUnskilled.

DMs should judge the whole world by this constant standard. If the world levels up then it is effectively a treadmill.

 Ahtman wrote:
Excluding that those numbers are taken in a vacuum*, I think breaking it down entirely to numbers and thinking about adventuring in terms of discreet numbers or relative performance misses the point entirely of playing an RPG.



*The guy with the 18+_ could fail every time irl and the guy with the 19+ could succeed each time. How it plays out on paper doesn't always translate into actual results.

Like I said it's a small nit-picky piece of the much bigger issue of building experiences. I'm not advocating for thinking of stories strictly in terms of numbers, and certainly not entirely in terms of the difference +1/-1 makes. There are lots of considerations. Even just within the realm of game play mechanics there are far bigger issues to consider.

Unfortunately, the rules don't explain that the frame of reference. Is breaking into the vault equally hard for the Cleric and the Rogue? Clearly NO - the Rogue will have an easier time of it. But the DC stays the same whether the Cleric or the Rogue is trying it. So to whom or what is that scale relative?

I don't think the world should scale. Context can sometimes make two otherwise very similar tasks in fact different tasks.. say convincing the king to send his army to help his neighbor when you're one of his servants, vs his beloved (if wayward) son.

However I think a good GM or adventurer-writer should be actively aware what the players are capable of and expose them to appropriate challenges. I'm not going to be asking my level 1 party to get up 200ft oil-covered sheer marble pillars with no equipent, any more than I'm going to be forcing them to fight a giant red dragon.

 Manchu wrote:
IMO the +1 to Proficiency at Level 5 feels like a big deal because Proficiency is such an important mechanic. But in terms of rolling a skill check, that +1 is still just +5% chance to succeed. And that is where the game happens.

But the main issue here is how to judge and implement DCs. DCs are about the world, not about the PCs. That is to say, DCs should not level up. This can be confusing because DCs are explained like this:

Very Easy 5
Easy 10
Medium 15
Hard 20
Very Hard 25
Nearly Impossible 30

Unfortunately, the rules don't explain the frame of reference. Is breaking into the vault equally hard for the Cleric and the Rogue? Clearly NO - the Rogue will have an easier time of it. But the DC stays the same whether the Cleric or the Rogue is trying it, which allows for the skill mechanic. So to whom or what is that scale relative?

I guess it is relative to a hypothetical NPC with 10 in every stat and no proficiencies. Mr. Average McUnskilled.

DMs should judge the whole world by this constant standard. If the world levels up then it is effectively a treadmill.

You said what I kept trying (and failing) to type up just a bit ago... Sure, there's a place for a DC check that is an "odd" number, but in the better games that I've played, the DM had a copy of all player's sheets so knew that, my character with a very high athletic skill would be almost "garaunteed" to pass a DC 13 check, he wouldn't say "no Ms. Rogue, you can't try to break through this door because your athletic/strength skill sucks"... In fact, when presented with a challenge, he basically opened the floor to allow us players to tell him HOW we were going to pass that challenge.... In my "blocked door" example, with a DC 13, he'd allow my strongman to try to bust through it, or the wizard to use his quarterstaff/ any of the "Wisdom" skills to pry it open, the rogue to pull the pins on the door with a thievery check, etc.... the door being blocked challenge remained the same "level" (ie, DC 13 or whatever) it's just that each character was allowed to go about it in their way.

I think with one of the instances earlier, having a group of bandits react to a DC X for "diplomacy" and a different DC for "intimidation" seems a bit wrong, if it's an "uncontested" check... I mean, if the PCs are comparing their diplomacy/intimidate against the bandit leader's own intimidate (or whatever skill you want to use here) then I can see things being of a different difficulty.

 Chongara wrote:
I'm [not] going to be forcing them to fight a giant red dragon.

You're no fun.

As to social checks - I think the behavior of most NPCs should be randomized. I would use opposed rolls rather than pre-set DCs. Let the bandit roll WIS or CHA against the PCs' attempt to intimidate him. If the PCs come up with a good plan, give them advantage on the Intimidation check. Using pre-set DCs is part and parcel of the treadmill setting. Modules often feature pre-set DCs, which IMO amounts to padding the product. If you're going to use a pre-set DC, at least go with the scale given by the rules.

 Chongara wrote:
However I think a good GM or adventurer-writer should be actively aware what the players are capable of and expose them to appropriate challenges. I'm not going to be asking my level 1 party to get up 200ft oil-covered sheer marble pillars with no equipent, any more than I'm going to be forcing them to fight a giant red dragon.

The great thing about D&D -- in fact the greatest thing about D&D -- is that the PCs can do whatever they want. To the extent the DM forces the PCs to do anything, she's not doing it right. Indeed, I'd say it is not the DM's job to know the PCs' limitations and capabilities. It is certainly NOT the DM's job to "expose them to the appropriate challenges." It's the DM's job to run the world so that PC's can reasonably assess the risks as they decide to do things.

 Manchu wrote:
As to social checks - I think the behavior of most NPCs should be randomized. I would use opposed rolls rather than pre-set DCs. Let the bandit roll WIS against the PCs' attempt to intimidate him. If the PCs come up with a good plan, give them advantage on the Intimidation check.

Perhaps in a situation, like chongara (I think) mentioned, where there is a clear cut, easily seen "leader" the opposed roll/DC could be set against them, because up to the point where the PCs are rolling, the "lesser" bandits know, and recognize who's "da boss"

Well, I guess I assumed the PCs would try to intimidate whoever was in charge among the bandits.

 Manchu wrote:
Well, I guess I assumed the PCs would try to intimidate whoever was in charge among the bandits.

Agreed, but the way he had originally written it, the preset DC was against the minions, and attempting to convince them, almost individually that a fight wasn't worth it.

IME that's not a believable simulation of group dynamics.

 Manchu wrote:
As to social checks - I think the behavior of most NPCs should be randomized. I would use opposed rolls rather than pre-set DCs. Let the bandit roll WIS against the PCs' attempt to intimidate him. If the PCs come up with a good plan, give them advantage on the Intimidation check. Using pre-set DCs is part and parcel of the treadmill setting. Modules often feature pre-set DCs, which IMO amounts to padding the product.

 Chongara wrote:
However I think a good GM or adventurer-writer should be actively aware what the players are capable of and expose them to appropriate challenges. I'm not going to be asking my level 1 party to get up 200ft oil-covered sheer marble pillars with no equipent, any more than I'm going to be forcing them to fight a giant red dragon.

The great thing about D&D -- in fact the greatest thing about D&D -- is that the PCs can do whatever they want. To the extent the DM forces the PCs to do anything, she's not doing it right. Indeed, I'd say it is not the DM's job to know the PCs' limitations and capabilities. It is certainly NOT the DM's job to "expose them to the appropriate challenges." It's the DM's job to run the world so that PC's can reasonably assess the risks as they decide to do things.

I think we come from very different schools of thought, or at least prefer different styles of campaign. I'm not particularly concerned with simulating a world so much as creating an experience. As far as I'm concerned things that aren't and have never been "On Screen" don't exist in a meaningful sense. They're only relevant so far as they relate to the PCs interests, or the PCs story.

Let's say the PCs are going from Town A to Town B. Through knowledge checks, maps or asking NPCs it's been established that there is a bridge between Town A and Town B and that the bridge is old and in disrepair but not it's actual state. In my view the bridge is basically in narrative limbo, it's Schrodinger's bridge. It's state: Up, Down, or "Up but dangerous" only matters once it comes into view either literally or from new information. Which state it is in when it comes into view should be entirely dependent on what is going to provide the most compelling and engaging experience in the context of the adventure.

If the PCs are tired and have had a run of hard challenges and they (and the players) just need kind of break, and I'm not currently looking to create a mood of "When it rains it pours" then the bridge should be up. If i'm looking to evoke a sense of frustration and struggle, the bridge should present a tough challenge being barely intact.

Maybe if the PCs found new flying boots just before getting there, the bridge should be out giving them a chance to use their new toy.

Maybe if they don't have any great tools to deal with it but haven't had a great challenge the bridge should be mostly out, but enough left to improvise some kind of traversal.

In this way the difficulty of crossing a bridge that's up, or down or just partially out doesn't change... but which of these things they run into sure does.

My goal with the game is to first provide an engaging experience, both in terms of narrative and gameplay and provoke an emotional response to the story. Anything that doesn't serve those purposes is just watering things down.