Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="catsclaw" data-source="post: 4131581" data-attributes="member: 59911">Once again, you're arguing semantics.&nbsp; The rules very clearly state the level of traps and associated experience point rewards for them.&nbsp; The rules give very detailed instructions for calculating the CR of monsters and groups of monsters, and how to gauge how difficult an encounter will be for the party.&nbsp; Those are rules, and the 3.5 rules covering this stuff are terrible.Also, you seem to feel like just because you call a rule a guideline you win the argument.&nbsp; You don't.&nbsp; The point is that 4e is going to provide much better support for the GM in handling complex encounters, both combat and social.&nbsp; Call that &quot;support&quot; a guideline, call it a rule, I don't care.&nbsp; It's something 4e will do better than 3.5.&nbsp; The fact it exists at all means it's better than 3.5.Maybe so, maybe not.&nbsp; What I said was &quot;I'll bet 95% of the people on here consider encounter design to be part of the rules&quot; which is a statement of fact.That's funny, I was thinking the same thing about you.&nbsp; Mine may not have been great, but I was forced to extend yours, and was limited by the source material.Yes!&nbsp; That's exactly what it's like.&nbsp; 3.5 contains a collection of shoddy guidelines which don't work for social encounters and barely work for combat encounters, so you're forced to invent a system that does.&nbsp; 4e has that built it.&nbsp; That's what people are saying.This is demonstrably false.&nbsp; In response to my first post on this thread, you said &quot;I'll let you ponder the complete lack of logic in that statement.&quot;&nbsp; If you're wondering why I'm being so uncivil to you, that's why.&nbsp; You started the debate by insulting me.&nbsp; And you've done nothing afterward to improve my opinion of you.Look, you've staked out a logical position which is quite simply indefensible.&nbsp; Sure, you could do all this in 3.5.&nbsp; As you yourself said, &quot;... they should be saying, 'In 3e we didn't tell anyone to do this, you had to learn on your own.'&quot;&nbsp; It's exactly as if someone defended checkers as a good role-playing game, because the rules didn't explicitly prevent imagining the pieces had different personalities.&nbsp; That's not exactly a winning premise.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="catsclaw, post: 4131581, member: 59911"] Once again, you're arguing semantics. The rules very clearly state the level of traps and associated experience point rewards for them. The rules give very detailed instructions for calculating the CR of monsters and groups of monsters, and how to gauge how difficult an encounter will be for the party. Those are rules, and the 3.5 rules covering this stuff are terrible. Also, you seem to feel like just because you call a rule a guideline you win the argument. You don't. The point is that 4e is going to provide much better support for the GM in handling complex encounters, both combat and social. Call that "support" a guideline, call it a rule, I don't care. It's something 4e will do better than 3.5. The fact it exists at [i]all[/i] means it's better than 3.5. Maybe so, maybe not. What I said was "I'll bet 95% of the people on here consider encounter design to be part of the rules" which is a statement of fact. That's funny, I was thinking the same thing about you. Mine may not have been great, but I was forced to extend yours, and was limited by the source material. Yes! That's [b]exactly what it's like[/b]. 3.5 contains a collection of shoddy guidelines which don't work for social encounters and barely work for combat encounters, so you're forced to invent a system that [i]does[/i]. 4e has that built it. [i]That's[/i] what people are saying. This is demonstrably false. In response to my first post on this thread, you said "I'll let you ponder the complete lack of logic in that statement." If you're wondering why I'm being so uncivil to you, [i]that's[/i] why. You started the debate by insulting me. And you've done nothing afterward to improve my opinion of you. Look, you've staked out a logical position which is quite simply indefensible. Sure, you [i]could[/i] do all this in 3.5. As you [i]yourself[/i] said, "... they should be saying, 'In 3e we didn't tell anyone to do this, you had to learn on your own.'" It's exactly as if someone defended checkers as a good role-playing game, because the rules didn't explicitly prevent imagining the pieces had different personalities. That's not exactly a winning premise. [/QUOTE]

Verification