I have an encounter coming up where my group is doing their first real full-scale dungeon crawl at level 7 and I am afraid I made it too much.
My question here is if I should be more afraid of making the dungeon easy and boring in the terms of combat, or should I be more afraid of putting too much and potentially getting everyone killed? Is it better to ensure everyone gets out alive or better for the fights to be challenging and trying?
I have an encounter coming up where my group is doing their first real full-scale dungeon crawl at level 7 and I am afraid I made it too much.
My question here is if I should be more afraid of making the dungeon easy and boring in the terms of combat, or should I be more afraid of putting too much and potentially getting everyone killed? Is it better to ensure everyone gets out alive or better for the fights to be challenging and trying?
Boring is bad, but the right level of challenge depends on the abilities and preferences of your players. I will say that if you make fights hard, it's a good idea to make it so the PCs losing a fight doesn't mean the campaign's over.
Generally speaking, I never design an encounter unless it’s at least Hard, and most of them are Deadly+. IMO, anything less challenging than Hard isn’t worth rolling initiative for unles I wan to throw them a bone on a no combat day.
it's a good idea to make it so the PCs losing a fight doesn't mean the campaign's over.
DING DING DING!
Yeah, that's... not actually what I was talking about. He's talking about "We know the heroes are going to win, and the drama is about how they do it". I'm talking about "The PCs really do fail, but the nature of the loss is something that still lets the campaign continue -- just in a different direction". Usually, this is because the bad guy's victory conditions don't actually involve the PCs being dead.
Let's give a simple example: the PCs have found out about an assassination attempt against the duke, attempt to foil this evil plot, and have a grand battle against the assassins. Which they promptly lose (maybe the dice were not with them, maybe the DM overestimated their abilities, whatever). The thing is, the assassin's win conditions is not "the PCs are dead". The assassin's win condition is "The Duke is dead". They aren't going to go to an effort to not kill the PCs, but once the PCs have stopped fighting, they're going to head off to kill the duke, letting the bodies lie where they may. The odds are, someone is going to stabilize, or even roll a 20 and wake up, so the campaign isn't really over. Some of the PCs may be dead, the Duke is certainly dead, but there's still somewhere you can go from here. Whereas "Okay, the monsters chop your heads off and leave them on pikes to warn off the next set of would-be heroes" really doesn't give any path forward.
If this is going to be a long involved dungeon over multiple sessions then I really wouldn’t worry overly much, the players don’t know what’s going on off screen and this is not a computer game so you can tweak it as needed, if you feel early on your have pitched it too hard then adjust the later parts of the dungeon slightly, if it’s too easy build up and increase. I do this all the time, not just in terms of difficulty but I will have monsters patrolling and moving around my maps constantly if it makes sense. I recently ran a goblin cave system based off the lost mins of phandelver, but then added a load more area to it. As the players went into the cave system I had 2 maps, one showing real time the players as they did there thing, and then another that had all the goblins and bugbears, there was a starting point, but as the players progressed the goblins patrolled, moved around and then, as they became aware of the players, reacted, warning others and slowly positioning themselves. This allowed me to control the way the goblins attacked the players, the waves I sent at them while keeping it logical, I could feel if the fight was getting too easy and have that group of goblins come forward to see what was happening, or too hard so I could have groups hold up in defensive positions giving the party a breather. It meant the area wasn’t static with goblins sat as statues waiting to “perform”.
You can do the same thing, maybe you feel later on a trap is going to be too tricky or powerful, you could nerf the damage, or, you could have a couple of monsters trigger it by accident, maybe the party find a monster impaled by a hail of bolts, or dead/dying in a spiked pit. You have reduced the power of the dungeon in a logical story wise way.
it's a good idea to make it so the PCs losing a fight doesn't mean the campaign's over.
DING DING DING!
Yeah, that's... not actually what I was talking about. He's talking about "We know the heroes are going to win, and the drama is about how they do it". I'm talking about "The PCs really do fail, but the nature of the loss is something that still lets the campaign continue -- just in a different direction". Usually, this is because the bad guy's victory conditions don't actually involve the PCs being dead.
Let's give a simple example: the PCs have found out about an assassination attempt against the duke, attempt to foil this evil plot, and have a grand battle against the assassins. Which they promptly lose (maybe the dice were not with them, maybe the DM overestimated their abilities, whatever). The thing is, the assassin's win conditions is not "the PCs are dead". The assassin's win condition is "The Duke is dead". They aren't going to go to an effort to not kill the PCs, but once the PCs have stopped fighting, they're going to head off to kill the duke, letting the bodies lie where they may. The odds are, someone is going to stabilize, or even roll a 20 and wake up, so the campaign isn't really over. Some of the PCs may be dead, the Duke is certainly dead, but there's still somewhere you can go from here. Whereas "Okay, the monsters chop your heads off and leave them on pikes to warn off the next set of would-be heroes" really doesn't give any path forward.
Sometimes the BBEG does just want the party dead, especially if they have stopped there plans in the past and become a thorn in the side.
I’d say Go for too much; it doesn’t hurt to over-prepare. Start with what you think is too much, and if the PCs can’t handle it, it’s fairly easy to just cut an encounter, or let them barricade themselves into a room for a long rest. If it’s too little, it’s harder to add a new encounter on the fly.
I certainly don't ensure everyone gets out alive. Most parties are so powerful even by 4th level and definitely by 7th that you'd have a hard time killing them with anything remotely approaching a reasonable threat for their level, even if you wanted to, unless you wanted to be purposely unfair. Tough and challenging is more fun, I think. But make sure your players think so too.
My group is going through a shrine full of low level enemies right now -- but there are hundreds of them. If the alarm is sounded, it could be death. I did not try to prevent that in any way. I assume they will be able to survive it in some way. And if they don't, well... it's always fun to roll up new PCs.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Sometimes the BBEG does just want the party dead, especially if they have stopped there plans in the past and become a thorn in the side.
The thing about legitimately hard fights is that sometimes the PCs lose. Which means you have to be prepared for that possibility. Sometimes ending the campaign is the right thing to do (particularly for something you set up as a climactic final battle that would have ended the campaign anyway), but a lot of the time it's not what you want to do.
Well it also depends on how you define a "campaign." In the old days if there was a party wipe, we'd make up new PCs and go get revenge, and maybe see if we could find their bodies and rez them or at least give them a decent burial. The BBEG still gets beaten, just by the next party... we considered that part of the "same campaign."
Also some of it depends on time. For example, my campaign has been going on for a year. There's probably at least another year or so to go, if not more. Which is fine. But, if a TPK happens, I would not feel like I hadn't done enough of a campaign as GM. I'd be perfectly happy after a year, if there is a TPK, to say, "OK who wants to DM next." I feel like I have done my part and then some.
But it all depends on the circumstances. I would not have said that 6 months ago, for instance.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Sometimes the BBEG does just want the party dead, especially if they have stopped there plans in the past and become a thorn in the side.
The thing about legitimately hard fights is that sometimes the PCs lose. Which means you have to be prepared for that possibility. Sometimes ending the campaign is the right thing to do (particularly for something you set up as a climactic final battle that would have ended the campaign anyway), but a lot of the time it's not what you want to do.
My players are well aware that sometimes a battle is not meant to be fought to the death, sometimes a fighting retreat and escape can be equally as good. I have in the past often put players in no win situations where if they go toe to toe they will die and have a TPK, that is the point of the encounter to learn to retreat and understand, we can’t fight that now, we need to go find stuff that will help kill it.
Well it also depends on how you define a "campaign." In the old days if there was a party wipe, we'd make up new PCs and go get revenge, and maybe see if we could find their bodies and rez them or at least give them a decent burial. The BBEG still gets beaten, just by the next party... we considered that part of the "same campaign."
Also some of it depends on time. For example, my campaign has been going on for a year. There's probably at least another year or so to go, if not more. Which is fine. But, if a TPK happens, I would not feel like I hadn't done enough of a campaign as GM. I'd be perfectly happy after a year, if there is a TPK, to say, "OK who wants to DM next." I feel like I have done my part and then some.
But it all depends on the circumstances. I would not have said that 6 months ago, for instance.
I am one of those who will only ever DM :) so a TPK is fine, we find a new way to carry on the story of its one the players want to.
I agree with the general feeling here: err on the side of challenge. PCs have WAY more built in survival mechanisms than we DMs think, and worst comes to worst, they can always retreat. And in the rare event that everyone does go down, don’t kill them but let them roll death saves: about half die and the game goes on!
Well, TPKs mostly happen because the players don't usually try to retreat (or don't try it until it is far too late).... so although they can always retreat, they usually don't.
But hey, that is a great object lesson. When you roll up the new characters, make sure their personalities allow them to retreat... lol.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
If the characters don’t die, and the campaign continues, the players win. It’s still another version of “failing forward.” In that Colville vid I embedded, when he talks about Indy not dying because of a series of failed saves when the “bad guy” took the whip and abandoned him. Like I said, if the PCs don’t die and the campaign continues, the players win. Whether they’re rolling Attacks and Saves, or if they’re rolling Skill Checks.... To borrow a phrase from Ron White, “You can ride the donkey, or you can ride the tram. It is the same price.”
When I run a game, I don’t do a monolithic, 5e style “1-11+ Campaign” that promptly ends and we start with a new party again. I prefer to present a more dynamic pool of smaller potential Adventures that are not specifically related and are largely only linked by the Party. Everything is in flux until it happens. At the end off a season I ask my players what their plans are for the next session. If they decide to do something other than what they told me the week before it’s more disruptive to that adventure than if hey loose a fight but survive. (At least then I would know that whatever I prep will be relevant.)
So I’m sorry but you’re gonna have to convince me that “failing to accomplish something in D&D but still not loosing the campaign” is any different from ”failing to accomplish something in D&D but still not loosing the campaign” just because one is combat flavored and the other is Ability Checks flavored. I mean, I can have two scoops of pralines and cream on a waffle cone, or I can have a vanilla-strawb-chocolate banana split. Either way I had an ice cream dessert. 🤨
If the characters don’t die, and the campaign continues, the players win. It’s still another version of “failing forward.” In that Colville vid I embedded, when he talks about Indy not dying because of a series of failed saves when the “bad guy” took the whip and abandoned him. Like I said, if the PCs don’t die and the campaign continues, the players win.
Maybe the players do, but the characters didn't, and the campaign could easily wind up turning in a very different direction. The Indiana Jones example he gives, none of the kerfuffle with multiple rolls actually mattered, because in the end he was trying to get through the door, and he succeeded. Yes, there were some dramatic moments, but he still made it. If on the other hand he saved himself but the door closed before he got there, at best he has to find a different way, at worst he has to return home empty handed, and either way the course of the adventure changed in a meaningful way.
Encounters don't have to BE deadly to FEEL deadly.
If you want to lower challenge, but raise up tension, find ways to up your narration in combat and tie roleplay into it so that the players are engaged with the story of the combat, and not just waiting for their turn.
Personally, I will avoid making combat too difficult rather than making it too easy - if it's too easy, you can throw them more combat, if it's too difficult, you have to work out how to avoid TPK, or just TPK, both of which are less fun & more work.
I always try to avoid "combat encounters" entirely and focus on just "encounters". They might face a powerful enemy, but that enemy might be a mother defending her cubs who will stop fighting if the party retreats, or won't even attack if they don't come too close. Giving the "enemies" (think of them more as obstacles) motives and goals can drive encounters in much more interesting routes. Instead of "this room has a thing you need to kill to move on", you say "you need to get through this room, but it contains this thing", and the party can decide if they are wanting to fight, charm, persuade, threaten or sneak their way past.
If the characters don’t die, and the campaign continues, the players win. It’s still another version of “failing forward.” In that Colville vid I embedded, when he talks about Indy not dying because of a series of failed saves when the “bad guy” took the whip and abandoned him. Like I said, if the PCs don’t die and the campaign continues, the players win.
Maybe the players do, but the characters didn't, and the campaign could easily wind up turning in a very different direction. The Indiana Jones example he gives, none of the kerfuffle with multiple rolls actually mattered, because in the end he was trying to get through the door, and he succeeded. Yes, there were some dramatic moments, but he still made it. If on the other hand he saved himself but the door closed before he got there, at best he has to find a different way, at worst he has to return home empty handed, and either way the course of the adventure changed in a meaningful way.
I think you just proved my point. No matter whether it’s combat or something else, if the character fails at the task but doesn’t die, the campaign goes on. So Indy crosses the chasm but the door closes before he can get through leaving him trapped could change the course of the campaign just like him losing a fight and getting captured could.... Oh, wait a minute... Remember later in the movie when he’s down in the pit and everyone else gets out but they throw Marian down and trap them with the snakes, or when the Nazis beat him up and captured later in the movie.... So both of those exact things you mentionedhappened to him later in that exact campaign movie, and he still won!! Huzzah!!
And you say “change the course of the campaign” as if it was already predetermined and it got effed up. How.?!? Nothing in any campaign is set until it has already happened. Not unless your campaign is on tracks to a destination no matter what. But I don’t want my players riding Blane the Train, and I don’t want to ride either when I’m a player. So if the party win the fight, the next things that happen will be as a result of that, and if they lose but don’t die then the following part will be as a result of that too. But neither of those following bits have already been decided, so nothing “changes,” it just went the way it went is all.
I have an encounter coming up where my group is doing their first real full-scale dungeon crawl at level 7 and I am afraid I made it too much.
My question here is if I should be more afraid of making the dungeon easy and boring in the terms of combat, or should I be more afraid of putting too much and potentially getting everyone killed? Is it better to ensure everyone gets out alive or better for the fights to be challenging and trying?
Boring is bad, but the right level of challenge depends on the abilities and preferences of your players. I will say that if you make fights hard, it's a good idea to make it so the PCs losing a fight doesn't mean the campaign's over.
Generally speaking, I never design an encounter unless it’s at least Hard, and most of them are Deadly+. IMO, anything less challenging than Hard isn’t worth rolling initiative for unles I wan to throw them a bone on a no combat day.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
DING DING DING!
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Yeah, that's... not actually what I was talking about. He's talking about "We know the heroes are going to win, and the drama is about how they do it". I'm talking about "The PCs really do fail, but the nature of the loss is something that still lets the campaign continue -- just in a different direction". Usually, this is because the bad guy's victory conditions don't actually involve the PCs being dead.
Let's give a simple example: the PCs have found out about an assassination attempt against the duke, attempt to foil this evil plot, and have a grand battle against the assassins. Which they promptly lose (maybe the dice were not with them, maybe the DM overestimated their abilities, whatever). The thing is, the assassin's win conditions is not "the PCs are dead". The assassin's win condition is "The Duke is dead". They aren't going to go to an effort to not kill the PCs, but once the PCs have stopped fighting, they're going to head off to kill the duke, letting the bodies lie where they may. The odds are, someone is going to stabilize, or even roll a 20 and wake up, so the campaign isn't really over. Some of the PCs may be dead, the Duke is certainly dead, but there's still somewhere you can go from here. Whereas "Okay, the monsters chop your heads off and leave them on pikes to warn off the next set of would-be heroes" really doesn't give any path forward.
If this is going to be a long involved dungeon over multiple sessions then I really wouldn’t worry overly much, the players don’t know what’s going on off screen and this is not a computer game so you can tweak it as needed, if you feel early on your have pitched it too hard then adjust the later parts of the dungeon slightly, if it’s too easy build up and increase. I do this all the time, not just in terms of difficulty but I will have monsters patrolling and moving around my maps constantly if it makes sense. I recently ran a goblin cave system based off the lost mins of phandelver, but then added a load more area to it. As the players went into the cave system I had 2 maps, one showing real time the players as they did there thing, and then another that had all the goblins and bugbears, there was a starting point, but as the players progressed the goblins patrolled, moved around and then, as they became aware of the players, reacted, warning others and slowly positioning themselves. This allowed me to control the way the goblins attacked the players, the waves I sent at them while keeping it logical, I could feel if the fight was getting too easy and have that group of goblins come forward to see what was happening, or too hard so I could have groups hold up in defensive positions giving the party a breather. It meant the area wasn’t static with goblins sat as statues waiting to “perform”.
You can do the same thing, maybe you feel later on a trap is going to be too tricky or powerful, you could nerf the damage, or, you could have a couple of monsters trigger it by accident, maybe the party find a monster impaled by a hail of bolts, or dead/dying in a spiked pit. You have reduced the power of the dungeon in a logical story wise way.
Sometimes the BBEG does just want the party dead, especially if they have stopped there plans in the past and become a thorn in the side.
I’d say Go for too much; it doesn’t hurt to over-prepare. Start with what you think is too much, and if the PCs can’t handle it, it’s fairly easy to just cut an encounter, or let them barricade themselves into a room for a long rest. If it’s too little, it’s harder to add a new encounter on the fly.
I certainly don't ensure everyone gets out alive. Most parties are so powerful even by 4th level and definitely by 7th that you'd have a hard time killing them with anything remotely approaching a reasonable threat for their level, even if you wanted to, unless you wanted to be purposely unfair. Tough and challenging is more fun, I think. But make sure your players think so too.
My group is going through a shrine full of low level enemies right now -- but there are hundreds of them. If the alarm is sounded, it could be death. I did not try to prevent that in any way. I assume they will be able to survive it in some way. And if they don't, well... it's always fun to roll up new PCs.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
The thing about legitimately hard fights is that sometimes the PCs lose. Which means you have to be prepared for that possibility. Sometimes ending the campaign is the right thing to do (particularly for something you set up as a climactic final battle that would have ended the campaign anyway), but a lot of the time it's not what you want to do.
Well it also depends on how you define a "campaign." In the old days if there was a party wipe, we'd make up new PCs and go get revenge, and maybe see if we could find their bodies and rez them or at least give them a decent burial. The BBEG still gets beaten, just by the next party... we considered that part of the "same campaign."
Also some of it depends on time. For example, my campaign has been going on for a year. There's probably at least another year or so to go, if not more. Which is fine. But, if a TPK happens, I would not feel like I hadn't done enough of a campaign as GM. I'd be perfectly happy after a year, if there is a TPK, to say, "OK who wants to DM next." I feel like I have done my part and then some.
But it all depends on the circumstances. I would not have said that 6 months ago, for instance.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
My players are well aware that sometimes a battle is not meant to be fought to the death, sometimes a fighting retreat and escape can be equally as good. I have in the past often put players in no win situations where if they go toe to toe they will die and have a TPK, that is the point of the encounter to learn to retreat and understand, we can’t fight that now, we need to go find stuff that will help kill it.
I am one of those who will only ever DM :) so a TPK is fine, we find a new way to carry on the story of its one the players want to.
I agree with the general feeling here: err on the side of challenge. PCs have WAY more built in survival mechanisms than we DMs think, and worst comes to worst, they can always retreat. And in the rare event that everyone does go down, don’t kill them but let them roll death saves: about half die and the game goes on!
Wizard (Gandalf) of the Tolkien Club
Well, TPKs mostly happen because the players don't usually try to retreat (or don't try it until it is far too late).... so although they can always retreat, they usually don't.
But hey, that is a great object lesson. When you roll up the new characters, make sure their personalities allow them to retreat... lol.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
If the characters don’t die, and the campaign continues, the players win. It’s still another version of “failing forward.” In that Colville vid I embedded, when he talks about Indy not dying because of a series of failed saves when the “bad guy” took the whip and abandoned him. Like I said, if the PCs don’t die and the campaign continues, the players win. Whether they’re rolling Attacks and Saves, or if they’re rolling Skill Checks.... To borrow a phrase from Ron White, “You can ride the donkey, or you can ride the tram. It is the same price.”
When I run a game, I don’t do a monolithic, 5e style “1-11+ Campaign” that promptly ends and we start with a new party again. I prefer to present a more dynamic pool of smaller potential Adventures that are not specifically related and are largely only linked by the Party. Everything is in flux until it happens. At the end off a season I ask my players what their plans are for the next session. If they decide to do something other than what they told me the week before it’s more disruptive to that adventure than if hey loose a fight but survive. (At least then I would know that whatever I prep will be relevant.)
So I’m sorry but you’re gonna have to convince me that “failing to accomplish something in D&D but still not loosing the campaign” is any different from ”failing to accomplish something in D&D but still not loosing the campaign” just because one is combat flavored and the other is Ability Checks flavored. I mean, I can have two scoops of pralines and cream on a waffle cone, or I can have a vanilla-strawb-chocolate banana split. Either way I had an ice cream dessert. 🤨
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Maybe the players do, but the characters didn't, and the campaign could easily wind up turning in a very different direction. The Indiana Jones example he gives, none of the kerfuffle with multiple rolls actually mattered, because in the end he was trying to get through the door, and he succeeded. Yes, there were some dramatic moments, but he still made it. If on the other hand he saved himself but the door closed before he got there, at best he has to find a different way, at worst he has to return home empty handed, and either way the course of the adventure changed in a meaningful way.
Easy combat does not mean boring combat.
Encounters don't have to BE deadly to FEEL deadly.
If you want to lower challenge, but raise up tension, find ways to up your narration in combat and tie roleplay into it so that the players are engaged with the story of the combat, and not just waiting for their turn.
Personally, I will avoid making combat too difficult rather than making it too easy - if it's too easy, you can throw them more combat, if it's too difficult, you have to work out how to avoid TPK, or just TPK, both of which are less fun & more work.
I always try to avoid "combat encounters" entirely and focus on just "encounters". They might face a powerful enemy, but that enemy might be a mother defending her cubs who will stop fighting if the party retreats, or won't even attack if they don't come too close. Giving the "enemies" (think of them more as obstacles) motives and goals can drive encounters in much more interesting routes. Instead of "this room has a thing you need to kill to move on", you say "you need to get through this room, but it contains this thing", and the party can decide if they are wanting to fight, charm, persuade, threaten or sneak their way past.
Make your Artificer work with any other class with 174 Multiclassing Feats for your Artificer Multiclass Character!
DM's Guild Releases on This Thread Or check them all out on DMs Guild!
DrivethruRPG Releases on This Thread - latest release: My Character is a Werewolf: balanced rules for Lycanthropy!
I have started discussing/reviewing 3rd party D&D content on Substack - stay tuned for semi-regular posts!
I think you just proved my point. No matter whether it’s combat or something else, if the character fails at the task but doesn’t die, the campaign goes on. So Indy crosses the chasm but the door closes before he can get through leaving him trapped could change the course of the campaign just like him losing a fight and getting captured could.... Oh, wait a minute... Remember later in the movie when he’s down in the pit and everyone else gets out but they throw Marian down and trap them with the snakes, or when the Nazis beat him up and captured later in the movie.... So both of those exact things you mentionedhappened to him later in that exact
campaignmovie, and he still won!! Huzzah!!And you say “change the course of the campaign” as if it was already predetermined and it got effed up. How.?!? Nothing in any campaign is set until it has already happened. Not unless your campaign is on tracks to a destination no matter what. But I don’t want my players riding Blane the Train, and I don’t want to ride either when I’m a player. So if the party win the fight, the next things that happen will be as a result of that, and if they lose but don’t die then the following part will be as a result of that too. But neither of those following bits have already been decided, so nothing “changes,” it just went the way it went is all.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting