Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 5948122" data-attributes="member: 22779">One thing I find with the Internet discussions is that you have to sharpen your arguement.&nbsp; With your friends, a vague, &quot;Oh, this is blah blah blah&quot; might work since you're all playing with the same faulty understanding of the rules.&nbsp; But, if I put something on the a chat board, it's going to get the fine tooth comb treatment.&nbsp; For example, in a recent discussion on another board, someone was claiming that 3e and 4e adventure design flat out stated that all encounters must be balanced.&nbsp; Now, this is wrong.&nbsp; It's a misreading of what's actually stated in the books.&nbsp; The 3e DMG is pretty clear that at least a small percentage of encounters should be way above the party's pay grade and some percentage should be below as well.&nbsp; Mix and match for excitement.&nbsp; That sort of thing.Yet, there is a very persistent meme that 3e and 4e both tell DM's that all encounters must be balanced.In a given group, it's likely that everyone will have the same understanding of the books - whether mistaken or not.&nbsp; But, if you go into a broader discussion with more people, it's likely that mistakes will be caught out.I know that I am very, very careful now about discussing earlier editions because I know that my knowledge of the rules is shaky.&nbsp; So, I ask, rather than state (or at least I try - I don't always succeed.&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue&nbsp; &nbsp; :p"&nbsp; data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" /> ).&nbsp; So, I do see Internet discussion as a net positive.&nbsp; If nothing else, it exposes mistaken concepts pretty quickly.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 5948122, member: 22779"] One thing I find with the Internet discussions is that you have to sharpen your arguement. With your friends, a vague, "Oh, this is blah blah blah" might work since you're all playing with the same faulty understanding of the rules. But, if I put something on the a chat board, it's going to get the fine tooth comb treatment. For example, in a recent discussion on another board, someone was claiming that 3e and 4e adventure design flat out stated that all encounters must be balanced. Now, this is wrong. It's a misreading of what's actually stated in the books. The 3e DMG is pretty clear that at least a small percentage of encounters should be way above the party's pay grade and some percentage should be below as well. Mix and match for excitement. That sort of thing. Yet, there is a very persistent meme that 3e and 4e both tell DM's that all encounters must be balanced. In a given group, it's likely that everyone will have the same understanding of the books - whether mistaken or not. But, if you go into a broader discussion with more people, it's likely that mistakes will be caught out. I know that I am very, very careful now about discussing earlier editions because I know that my knowledge of the rules is shaky. So, I ask, rather than state (or at least I try - I don't always succeed. :p ). So, I do see Internet discussion as a net positive. If nothing else, it exposes mistaken concepts pretty quickly. [/QUOTE]

Verification