NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="wrecan" data-source="post: 5627549" data-attributes="member: 64825">But it can't be tested in that way.  A campaign as, at most, 300 encounters.  Those encounters are not in the player's control.  Many of those encounters won't involve combat.  Many of those encounters won't involve situations where the rogue's player would want to use any given encounter power.  That rogue may have other ways to slide people, using terrain powers, improvised actions, and other powers in the players arsenal.The game understands that play is sufficiently limited and not susceptible to controlled testing conditions to have to deal with this.  A character is simply highly unlikely to have sufficient numbers of encounters that are so similar that the limited resource mechanic would become apparent.We only discuss it because we can peer behind the curtain and see the game rules.  But the character in-game should not have occasion to suspect such a thing exists.I think that's only because you are not considering the context of the game and the duration of a given campaign.No doubt.  But that's true of every abstract mechanic, not just the disassociated ones.  It's just that the people alienated by abstract mechanics have already been alienated form the hobby.  So we've got the anthropic principle at work here too.Those of us still playing weren't sufficiently alienated by initiative, hit points, falling damage to stop playing.  But every rule change has the potential to alienate someone still playing and those people will search for patterns, because humans have an intrinsic need to find patterns.But the pattern isn't there.  It's just people have an aesthetic disprefrence for a given change.  It's taste and emotion, and there's nothing wrong with it, but there's nothing objective about it either.</blockquote>

Verification