Manbearcat
Legend
I don't want tools to estimate whether they're likely to win *. It's inconveniencing to me to have to explain to the players that I'm not using them.
<snip>
I want all design resources possible to go towards making encounters fun no matter the balance, rather than towards this XP budgeting thing. It's just a more robust and more inclusive and less passive aggressive way of making encounters fun.
This, right here, is where there is an unbelievable amount of divergence in expectation of core tenets of game design. Without tools to properly measure the output of an encounter versus PC output, </snip>I can't even know where the encounter lies on the TPK > survivable > walk-through sliding scale...<snip>forget about working on the details that actually make it compelling/rich from a tactical/strategic standpoint and climactic from a narrative standpoint (balance is just a means toward this end).
Possibly more importantly than that is the temerity to make the statement that you don't want (and I'm assuming where I've put a *, it is implied that "to exist" would be there...otherwise the followup statement doesn't make any sense as you state "I'm not using them" - implying option rather than core - and further, nothing is inconvenient if you don't have to confront it) an option/rule to exist because its "inconvenient" for you. I've seen you say elsewhere that the mere existence of certain rules/options is an inconvenience for you because you will then have to "explain yourself to your players" when you choose to houserule them out. The implication of course is such that for Libramarian's convenience within the social accords of his game, others' design hopes (for options...not core) must be dashed. Its amazingly Orwellian.
- Edited to get Libramarian's name correct.
</snip>
Last edited: