Jason Lutes I’d like to suggest an additional “danger level” tag based on reading through the monster list again.

Jason Lutes I’d like to suggest an additional “danger level” tag based on reading through the monster list again.

Jason Lutes I’d like to suggest an additional “danger level” tag based on reading through the monster list again.  I think you should include “Wilds” — it’s not dangerous because of people or monsters, but it’s not under anyone’s control, either. 

3 thoughts on “Jason Lutes I’d like to suggest an additional “danger level” tag based on reading through the monster list again.”

  1. A little of everything, Chris Shorb  — that is, when a hunter goes out into the forest are they going into “unsafe” territory?  To me that reads like “going where the bandits are”.   

    The “Wilds”, otoh, is just that… it’s out in the forest or the vast plains.  The dangers are simply nature herself, not some group or critters.  Sure, it could be chasms and quicksand… but it could also mean bears and wolves.  Does that make any sense?

  2. Thanks for the suggestion, Brennan — I may rewrite Unsafe to accommodate that difference. I am loathe to add another tag just because I think three should be enough to cover things, but II’ll think about the options.

Comments are closed.