Search results

Yes, and I've already tried to make it clear that this conversation has stemmed from folks saying "all-per encounter resource game isn't that bad" in which case that is what the discussion has been about for me (mostly) for the last 1,000 posts. Granted, it's only relevant to 4E to the degree...

My first point: it's somewhat misleading (not intentionally) to remove, from the example, the dice rolling, other PCs, and so on, basically simplifying the encounter and then say that the expected result was uninteresting. I would agree - having monsters do an average amount of damage is...

I actually agree with the bulk of your analysis, but this part is where we differ - or you might be implying something here that isn't true IMO. The battle is interesting because you have used 2 fireballs in a situation where you might need one later for the BBEG. Now, absent all other factors...

On this subject, I would ask everyone to read the designers notes in a certain way. It's usually pretty obvious when they are discussing actual experience and when they are discussing the consequences of hypothetical designs. It's one thing to say "I played a warlock in WoW and I was bored"...

That is what I hope. This current thought experiment/debate of "what's wrong with an all per-encounter resources design" came about due to the somewhat peculiar history of this thread. IMO though, it was worth discussing because many people's objections to the current resource design in 3E...

True, but a one-minute rest time for a 6 hour time constraint is not very significant AFAICT. Basically, when you combine the factors in such a way that this works out, then it starts to look pretty contrived by my particular design standards. Clearly if your players are used to this sort of...

In which case I'll sit around for 1 minute after the battle and then recast it. Or, the fly spell is a daily resource in which case I'm going to go outside and camp so that I can regain it, which according to some of you is all kinds of unfun. Note though: I actually would prefer 4E to have a...

(The only thing that's clear to you is that we don't agree. The rest of it is speculative and argumentative on your part. "It seems like you're not thinking about this" is more polite.) A combat that lasts long enough to effect the duration of a Fly spell is a strange one to me. I'm...

I think that "strawman" gets misused on this board all of the time to mean something that the reader doesn't agree with and this is not it's definition. My argument was not intended to be a proxy argument. Proving my example as valid does not prove my case, but it was a counter-example to your...

Now that the grammar is cleared up this statement makes just as little sense to me. The two parts of the sentence seem unrelated. It *is* repetative and boring to slog through another dungeon (as the word choice "slog" would even lead one to conclude) so a logical reading of the sentence would...

I'm confused by the grammar of this statement. Furthermore, "attaching context to an encounter" may very well be manipulative and heavy-handed - I can't really see where you are refuting this other than in your tone. For example, I design an adventure so that *whenever* the PCs walk through...

I've already been over this several times in this thread. I realize you are late to the party so I'll try an abbreviated version of my earlier arguments. Some of these options already exist in the per-day scenario. Some of these options are too overly contrived to rely on. "Using a magic...

Yea, exactly. *If* encounter N+1 is at a certain difficulty level then the N+1 encounter is not much different than the per-encounter situation. But that's one of my points, because there is no reason the N+1 encounter has to be like anything, whereas in order to make encounters interesting in...

If I stand a chance of making a wrong tactical decision, and a wrong tactical decision stands a chance of getting me killed, then IMO it is logical and obvious that the situation stands a chance of getting me killed. I just think it's logically impossible to have a situation where you are...

I'm not much interested in fluff changes either way in 4E. I would prefer that they keep the rules as core rules, and the structure of outer planes should be considered a setting specific thing. I have umpteen descriptions of the Great Wheel in various books and I don't need another one. If...

I don't think it's controversial. I'm not exactly against changing the DnD cosmology - though in this case I think the characterization of demons and devils are pretty consistent with their earlier design. DnD hasn't meant ADnD, that's true - however, there has been, more or less, a single...

And I'm sure someone that started out playing Tunnels and Trolls would feel even more that way. The red box was never part of AD&D and so there were no "changes" to AD&D at that time. "Elf" was never a character class in AD&D. Basic D&D was a different game. The AD&D cosmology has been...

Oh - it was actually the entire Great Wheel cosmology that was described in the 1E PHB. I'm sure there have been variations on it through various editions, but it was considered the default layout of the outer planes for all campaigns, not just Greyhawk. For example, Ed Greenwood makes...

Huh? My 1E PHB has a drawing of the layout of the elemental planes, and there was a Dragon magazine article before that. The Manual of the Planes wasn't a Greyhawk supplement - it used the deities and demi-gods for gods and IIRC didn't mention the Greyhawk deities.

What you're saying in the "so that the PCs survive the encounter" statement demonstrates to me AFAICT, as has been the case time and time again, that the real fall-back position for this per-encounter design is to really make each encounter have a significant chance of PC death. The protests...