Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 6559980" data-attributes="member: 6696971">@<a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=6790260" target="_blank">EzekielRaiden</a> has answered this quite well (and I know I've done this on more than one occasion) but this position you're taking defies engineering 101.Do you realize how easy it is to go from a street legal, precisely calibrated, perfectly engineered Ferrari to an insane drag-racer on the edge of being wildly out of control (without stripping it and caging it because you're not going for safety)?  Turbo-charge the engine (maybe * 2 even).  Turn off the traction control.  Change the tires.  Giant spoiler for more downforce.  Done.Now have someone hand you a custom built drag-racer or heavily modified <whatever> and see how easy it is to create a street legal, precisely calibrated, perfectly engineered Ferrari out of it.Making a poorly calibrated, swingy (from GM-side understanding of it) encounter system into a tightly calibrated, predictable (GM-side) system is an extremely significant project.  Doing the inverse is absolutely trivial.  I really don't understand this:If your aim is for swingy, unpredictable (for the GM) combat, how in the world is this true?  Wonk up two of the widgets and you're there.  Do you mean its a difficult thing psychologically for the GM...or a difficult thing to convey to the group, and have them accept, that you're wonking up the widgets and throwing encounter budgets out the window?  And that is the system's fault?  I don't understand at all.  You can't possibly be meaning "it isn't easy" from an engineering perspective so that must be what you mean?</blockquote>

Verification