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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6994878" data-attributes="member: 42582">This is I think moslty tangential to the thread, so I won't say a lot, other than - part of doing a craft well can be right intention. So creative/authorial intentions are (in my view) legitimate objects of criticism. And I think this can be seen in serious criticism (whether of visual art, performance, literature, film or music) - critics will discuss not only execution, but also goals.What the difference is between criticising a creator's intention, and just saying "I didn't like that", is something that I'll leave for another day.I don't think there is any danger here. WotC doesn't make design decisions based on individual ENworld threads.The real value of this thread is in identifying rules changes and rules interpretations that can support different sorts of encounters (and hence different sorts of fiction). [MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION] has contributed to that. And I don't think the gnoll encounter is "purposefully designing an encounter to show how a rule is 'broken'". As best I can tell, it was purposefully designing an encounter to find out how one rule (mobs) works, and then discovering that anothe rule (aura/zone damage) makes the encounter that was designed unviable. And the response is (in my view) perfectly reasonable: increase the hp of the monsters so as to somewhat nerf the auto-damage.(The 4e era was full of similar discussions, because of the interaction in that system between auto-damage and minions.)</blockquote>

Verification