Search results

No. Extraordinary claims means just that. Extraordinary claims. And the claim that there are large numbers of players out there who want risk-free D&D is pretty extraordinary, considering that risk is built into the system from the get-go. Look, all I'm saying is that if you start a thread...

It'd be nice if, instead of cutting the price of the console, Sony cut the price of the games instead. I realize that probably won't happen, but $60 for a game is frankly ridiculous IMO, and that's what's kept me away from both the PS3 and the 360 so far, more than the price of the systems...

As I already pointed out, Fireball has gone through drastic changes every time D&D has changed editions before this. Were those new editions not D&D anymore, too?

And how do you know that 4E will be a "bland generic easy uberpowered game?" It seems to me that you are assuming facts not in evidence.

Actually, thinking about it, there have been major changes made to Fireball with every new edition so far. 1E -> 2E: Damage capped at 10d6. 2E -> 3E: Spell no longer expands to fill its volume. So if changes are in store for Fireball in 4E, it's just par for the course.

Ah, 1E. Where you could never, ever cast Fireball indoors.

EDIT: Actually, never mind. Ignore list it is.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

No, it's cool. I just hear so much about players who want risk-free games around here that just for once, I'd like to see some evidence that these players actually exist in any significant numbers. I'm starting to think that the mythical player who wants everything handed to him on a silver...

Yes, I was using it as a shorthand. Claiming that X is true because X has not been proven false is a well-known logical fallacy.

Okay. Show them to me. You can't prove a negative. That's one of the most basic tenets of logic.

It's not about satisfying me. You made a claim - that there are significant numbers of players out there who want games with absolutely no risk in them. You need to support that claim with evidence. If the attitude is as pervasive as you suggest it is, that evidence should be simple to find...

Okay. You say that there's a segment of players out there who want to have adventures with no risk at all. Prove it. Show me posts from these people saying the things that you claim they believe. And not just one or two people - on the internet, you can find one or two people saying anything...

Can we eliminate your straw men, too, while we're at it?

Wrong.

Actually, yes. That is exactly what I would suggest. Actually, I and many others agree that it's also not fun to take out the BBEG on the first round of combat with a save-or-die. How does that play into your "people just want instant gratification" straw man?

Oh. Well, someone else claimed that you had suggested this, and you didn't contradict the post, so I thought you had accepted it. But maybe you just didn't see the post. In any case, if you don't think that wandering monsters are a cure to the short adventuring day problem, then we are in...

We're talking about the 3.X paradigm that a CR-appropriate encounter will consume 20-25% of the party's resources. This means that after four CR-appropriate encounters, an average party will be right around 10% resources. That's certainly not enough to survive another CR-appropriate encounter...

Not if the PCs resources are already used up it can't, as would be the case when they were resting (given the basic premise that the PCs are resting after four CR-appropriate encounters as the 3.X system assumes they will). There are many varying degrees of "less than full strength." What we're...

If the PCs can beat the ambush encounter, then it won't discourage them from resting. So nothing has changed. In order for a potential wandering monster encounter to provide a disincentive to resting, it has to pose a threat to the PCs. And when the PCs have used up all their resources...