Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="drnuncheon" data-source="post: 930659" data-attributes="member: 96">But, why?&nbsp; Why is the line somewhere between 40 rounds and 600 rounds, and not between 4 rounds and 40 rounds?&nbsp; Isn't it completely arbitrary?I would never predetermine an encounter in this way.&nbsp; If the 4 were sufficiently clever enough to actually beat the encounter, then more power to them - I obviously underestimated my players.&nbsp; I'm not going to arbitrarily change things to make it so that they must have the others.&nbsp; (But I'm not going to make it easier on them because they left people behind, either.)If anything, that is what is not fair - you're hosing the PCs for making good choices and winning when they weren't &quot;supposed to&quot;.But you just said that 600 rounds was too long.&nbsp; What if the wizard said &quot;I'm not going unless I'm full up on spells&quot;?&nbsp; Aren't you 'hosing him out of playing?&nbsp; Or is he hosing himself?&nbsp; And if he is hosing himself out of playing...aren't the people insisting on the armor doing exactly the same thing?But it is indeed the point - what you are talking about is the same choice as I am!&nbsp; Logically, a rogue wouldn't want to fight undead or golems.&nbsp; Logically a wizard wouldn't want to go into a big combat without a full complement of spells.So what do you do if the rogue says, &quot;No, I'm not going to that golem fight&quot;?&nbsp; Or the wizard says &quot;I'm not going to go save the city until I've had a good night's rest&quot;?Sounds to me like your NPCs are the ones getting special treatment, because you've already decided the course of the battle.J</blockquote>

[QUOTE="drnuncheon, post: 930659, member: 96"] But, why? Why is the line somewhere between 40 rounds and 600 rounds, and not between 4 rounds and 40 rounds? Isn't it completely arbitrary? I would never predetermine an encounter in this way. If the 4 were sufficiently clever enough to actually beat the encounter, then more power to them - I obviously underestimated my players. I'm not going to arbitrarily change things to make it so that they [i]must[/i] have the others. (But I'm not going to make it easier on them because they left people behind, either.) If anything, [b]that[/b] is what is not fair - you're hosing the PCs for making good choices and winning when they weren't "supposed to". But you just said that 600 rounds was too long. What if the wizard said "I'm not going unless I'm full up on spells"? Aren't you 'hosing him out of playing? Or is he hosing himself? And if he is hosing himself out of playing...aren't the people insisting on the armor doing exactly the same thing? But it is indeed the point - what you are talking about is the same choice as I am! [i]Logically[/i], a rogue wouldn't want to fight undead or golems. [i]Logically[/i] a wizard wouldn't want to go into a big combat without a full complement of spells. So what do you do if the rogue says, "No, I'm not going to that golem fight"? Or the wizard says "I'm not going to go save the city until I've had a good night's rest"? Sounds to me like your NPCs are the ones getting special treatment, because you've already decided the course of the battle. J [/QUOTE]

Verification