Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="lkj" data-source="post: 3884919" data-attributes="member: 18646">Well, to be clear, I wasn't trying to suggest that you were poisoning the well. Or that one side was more right than another. Or that you were intentionally misframing the debate. I just get the feeling that the two sides might arguing different things (which is often the case in these sorts of debates).At any rate, I guess that to summarize this discussion between you and me (and not everyone in the thread). You feel that aggro rules were obviously a bad idea and not worth testing. I don't agree. I think there might be versions of aggro rules that weren't obviously a bad idea. I say that because I've made some 'on the fly' type decisions about how monsters would act that essentially boil down to aggro rules. So, to me, experimenting with codifying that in the belief it might make DM'ing easier isn't &lt;i&gt;obviously&lt;/i&gt; a bad idea. Incidentally, I used 'guideline' and 'suggestion' because I pretty much take all those sorts of rules that way (Note: That's just me. I understand others feel more pressured to follow the letter of the rules, and that's understandable). But regardless-- I'm not trying to make you agree with me. It's fine that we have a different perspective on the matter. You think aggro rules were obviously not worth trying. That's not at all clear to me. It's not clear to me because I think that there might be implementations that would work out. It turns out the designers decided, after trying a method out, that it didn't work. And that's that.It seems to me that the deeper part of this discussion is whether you feel that their trying out aggro rules indicates that the designers are incompetent and that that incompetence may result in a game you don't like. My answer to that: Nope. It doesn't indicate that at all. But that's just my opinion . . .Cheers,AD</blockquote>

[QUOTE="lkj, post: 3884919, member: 18646"] Well, to be clear, I wasn't trying to suggest that you were poisoning the well. Or that one side was more right than another. Or that you were intentionally misframing the debate. I just get the feeling that the two sides might arguing different things (which is often the case in these sorts of debates). At any rate, I guess that to summarize this discussion between you and me (and not everyone in the thread). You feel that aggro rules were obviously a bad idea and not worth testing. I don't agree. I think there might be versions of aggro rules that weren't obviously a bad idea. I say that because I've made some 'on the fly' type decisions about how monsters would act that essentially boil down to aggro rules. So, to me, experimenting with codifying that in the belief it might make DM'ing easier isn't obviously a bad idea. Incidentally, I used 'guideline' and 'suggestion' because I pretty much take all those sorts of rules that way (Note: That's just me. I understand others feel more pressured to follow the letter of the rules, and that's understandable). But regardless-- I'm not trying to make you agree with me. It's fine that we have a different perspective on the matter. You think aggro rules were obviously not worth trying. That's not at all clear to me. It's not clear to me because I think that there might be implementations that would work out. It turns out the designers decided, after trying a method out, that it didn't work. And that's that. It seems to me that the deeper part of this discussion is whether you feel that their trying out aggro rules indicates that the designers are incompetent and that that incompetence may result in a game you don't like. My answer to that: Nope. It doesn't indicate that at all. But that's just my opinion . . . Cheers, AD [/QUOTE]

Verification