Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Nork" data-source="post: 5103215" data-attributes="member: 59879">Personally, I always find the general argument of: but if we included a difficulty rating system, it would just make people lose the ability to think for themselves, and rating systems are not perfect so you can't rely on them, to be an excuse.I find it an excuse because I consider the following logic to be the same, and to be an excuse: We didn't proof-read our work, because if we proof-read our work, then players would just assume that great swords doing 20d20 damage is intended and won't question it when all the other two handed weapons do damage similar to a 1d20.&nbsp; We all know proof-readers make mistakes, and therefore those mistakes that slips through would have an air of officialness.&nbsp; The better solution is to not catch any mistakes and rely on the users to figure out what we really meant.No product or work is totally perfect.&nbsp; No product or work ever will be.&nbsp; Any rating system will suffer from that imperfection, just like the rest of the work will suffer from it.&nbsp; The logical conclusion isn't to not even try.Also, if you are assuming that your users are incompetent to the point that if they are presented with a rating system that they won't be able to use any common sense, then why on earth do you think these very same people would be capable of eyeballing a stat block and designing reasonable encounters? That makes no sense.Now, I agree, if a system is such where combat is supposed to be a really bad and dangerous activity to engage in and should be avoided at all costs, then yes, not having a metric is acceptable enough.&nbsp; Although, I don't see how having some sort of rating system with an accompanying &quot;combat is baaaad&quot; guideline would hurt those systems either.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Nork, post: 5103215, member: 59879"] Personally, I always find the general argument of: but if we included a difficulty rating system, it would just make people lose the ability to think for themselves, and rating systems are not perfect so you can't rely on them, to be an excuse. I find it an excuse because I consider the following logic to be the same, and to be an excuse: We didn't proof-read our work, because if we proof-read our work, then players would just assume that great swords doing 20d20 damage is intended and won't question it when all the other two handed weapons do damage similar to a 1d20. We all know proof-readers make mistakes, and therefore those mistakes that slips through would have an air of officialness. The better solution is to not catch any mistakes and rely on the users to figure out what we really meant. No product or work is totally perfect. No product or work ever will be. Any rating system will suffer from that imperfection, just like the rest of the work will suffer from it. The logical conclusion isn't to not even try. Also, if you are assuming that your users are incompetent to the point that if they are presented with a rating system that they won't be able to use any common sense, then why on earth do you think these very same people would be capable of eyeballing a stat block and designing reasonable encounters? That makes no sense. Now, I agree, if a system is such where combat is supposed to be a really bad and dangerous activity to engage in and should be avoided at all costs, then yes, not having a metric is acceptable enough. Although, I don't see how having some sort of rating system with an accompanying "combat is baaaad" guideline would hurt those systems either. [/QUOTE]

Verification