Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 4131646" data-attributes="member: 4937">You keep saying this.&nbsp; I'm not sure that it means what you think it means.Yes, this is all true.&nbsp; But it really doesn't have anything to do with encounter design.&nbsp; If it did, we could turn everyone into great adventure writers merely by fixing the CR rules so that they were fair and balanced.The difference between rules and guidelines is fairly straightfoward.&nbsp; I can take the rules for resolving combat, transform them into C++ and produce a program that correctly arbitrates any situation that those rules cover.&nbsp; It will know whether something draws an AoO.&nbsp; It will be able to calculate the attack bonus and line of sight.&nbsp; I can do this because they are rules and hense, determinisitic.&nbsp; But I can't turn the guidelines for encounter design into C++ and produce a program that consistantly turns out interesting encounters.&nbsp; It won't know where to put traps.&nbsp; It won't know in which situations a particular monster is most interesting.&nbsp; It won't know anything about synergies between two monsters.&nbsp; It won't know anything about novel architecture or novel tactical problems.&nbsp; This is because the guidelines - even the expected 4e ones - are not deterministic.&nbsp; They are just guidelines.&nbsp; We do not have nor would I want rules on how to design encounters.&nbsp; I don't want my hands tied as a DM by a bunch of arbitrary rules.&nbsp; I've been designing adventures for 25 years.&nbsp; I don't need my hands held.&nbsp; Random tables are fine and have thier place, but even they are just guidelines.No, but I do feel you just don't get it.Until you care about the semantics, I can't begin to discuss with you the subtleties of that.&nbsp; Since you don't care, and since I began my interest in this thread by praising the developers of 4e for focusing on how to build good encounters and adventures, You certainly were not forced to do anything.I'm quite certain you don't know what my position is, much less whether its defensible or not.That is certainly not an analogy anyone forced you to make.&nbsp; It is most certainly not an appropriate analogy, much less an 'exact' one.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 4131646, member: 4937"] You keep saying this. I'm not sure that it means what you think it means. Yes, this is all true. But it really doesn't have anything to do with encounter design. If it did, we could turn everyone into great adventure writers merely by fixing the CR rules so that they were fair and balanced. The difference between rules and guidelines is fairly straightfoward. I can take the rules for resolving combat, transform them into C++ and produce a program that correctly arbitrates any situation that those rules cover. It will know whether something draws an AoO. It will be able to calculate the attack bonus and line of sight. I can do this because they are rules and hense, determinisitic. But I can't turn the guidelines for encounter design into C++ and produce a program that consistantly turns out interesting encounters. It won't know where to put traps. It won't know in which situations a particular monster is most interesting. It won't know anything about synergies between two monsters. It won't know anything about novel architecture or novel tactical problems. This is because the guidelines - even the expected 4e ones - are not deterministic. They are just guidelines. We do not have nor would I want rules on how to design encounters. I don't want my hands tied as a DM by a bunch of arbitrary rules. I've been designing adventures for 25 years. I don't need my hands held. Random tables are fine and have thier place, but even they are just guidelines. No, but I do feel you just don't get it. Until you care about the semantics, I can't begin to discuss with you the subtleties of that. Since you don't care, and since I began my interest in this thread by praising the developers of 4e for focusing on how to build good encounters and adventures, You certainly were not forced to do anything. I'm quite certain you don't know what my position is, much less whether its defensible or not. That is certainly not an analogy anyone forced you to make. It is most certainly not an appropriate analogy, much less an 'exact' one. [/QUOTE]

Verification