Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ulthwithian" data-source="post: 4743586" data-attributes="member: 60612">First, I must echo MrBeen's question.&nbsp; That is an underlying assumption that must be examined.&nbsp;Also, I would like to make a few points that may or may not have been explicitly made here (I have read every message).&nbsp;First, you have stated, multiple times, that 4E gives the player the choice of when to rest.&nbsp; Can you give me a source for that?&nbsp; Because I emphatically deny this, or at least the assumed equivalent that '4E gives the player the sole choice of when to rest'.&nbsp; Last I checked, the Gamemaster is the one primarily tasked with the flow of the game.&nbsp; I firmly believe that all choices (defined as an act of will that decides between alternatives) have consequences.&nbsp;The envelope should be pushed.&nbsp; You should force the players to fight without healing surges.&nbsp; If they complain, tell them that they shouldn't be profligate with their healing surges.&nbsp; If they return that the game is too difficult otherwise, you need to reduce the difficulty of the game if their return argument is valid.&nbsp;Second, I would be willing to wager any amount of money that your situation produced itself.&nbsp; That is, the situation has a clearly logical, clearly delineated causal chain.&nbsp;1) You refuse to use 4E's assumed encounter model.&nbsp; This right there accounts for every problem you've encountered.&nbsp; You see no use in 'easy' fights, and thus send, on average, encounters that would be considered too tough under 4E's model.&nbsp;2) As a consequence of this, your players have made intelligent choices in that they are prioritizing their access to healing.&nbsp; This is due to 1), and we have no evidence that anyone but you sees 1) as required.&nbsp;3) As a consequence of 2), you make the encounters harder, and you generate a positive feedback loop that threatens to spiral out of your control.&nbsp;My suggestion?&nbsp; Play exactly as you should in 4E.&nbsp; Make the encounters exactly as 4E suggests you do.&nbsp; N-1, N, N+1, N+3.&nbsp; You seem to misunderstand that you can challenge your parties perfectly fine with at-level encounters.&nbsp; This creates a win-win situation for you.&nbsp; If the players need the healing (for whatever reason), there's no problem, and you keep going.&nbsp; However, if you don't, point out to them that those multiclass feats they took are more or less wasted.&nbsp;Finally, I have to admit to some distaste to someone who opens by saying that they don't use 4E's models as a basis for their game, and then claim something is wrong with those models.&nbsp; Well, obviously you're not going to get an appropriate response out of 4E if you don't at least try to ascribe to its models.&nbsp; No game does.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ulthwithian, post: 4743586, member: 60612"] First, I must echo MrBeen's question. That is an underlying assumption that must be examined. Also, I would like to make a few points that may or may not have been explicitly made here (I have read every message). First, you have stated, multiple times, that 4E gives the player the choice of when to rest. Can you give me a source for that? Because I emphatically deny this, or at least the assumed equivalent that '4E gives the player the [I]sole[/I] choice of when to rest'. Last I checked, the Gamemaster is the one primarily tasked with the flow of the game. I firmly believe that all choices (defined as an act of will that decides between alternatives) have consequences. The envelope should be pushed. You should [I]force[/I] the players to fight without healing surges. If they complain, tell them that they shouldn't be profligate with their healing surges. If they return that the game is too difficult otherwise, [I]you need to reduce the difficulty of the game if their return argument is valid[/I]. Second, I would be willing to wager any amount of money that your situation produced itself. That is, the situation has a clearly logical, clearly delineated causal chain. 1) You refuse to use 4E's assumed encounter model. This right there accounts for [I]every problem you've encountered[/I]. You see no use in 'easy' fights, and thus send, on average, encounters that would be considered too tough under 4E's model. 2) [I]As a consequence of this[/I], your players have made intelligent choices in that they are prioritizing their access to healing. This is due to 1), and we have no evidence that anyone but you sees 1) as required. 3) [I]As a consequence of 2)[/I], you make the encounters harder, and you generate a positive feedback loop that threatens to spiral out of your control. My suggestion? Play [I]exactly[/I] as you should in 4E. Make the encounters [I]exactly[/I] as 4E suggests you do. N-1, N, N+1, N+3. You seem to misunderstand that you can challenge your parties perfectly fine with at-level encounters. This creates a win-win situation for you. If the players need the healing (for whatever reason), there's no problem, and you keep going. However, if you don't, point out to them that those multiclass feats they took are more or less wasted. Finally, I have to admit to some distaste to someone who opens by saying that they don't use 4E's models as a basis for their game, and then claim something is wrong with those models. Well, obviously you're not going to get an appropriate response out of 4E if you don't at least try to ascribe to its models. No game does. [/QUOTE]

Verification