Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Libramarian" data-source="post: 5979224" data-attributes="member: 6688858">I don't know that there is that much divergence. Who doesn't like tactically compelling and narratively climactic encounters? I just prefer for them to happen a little less often and less predictably in exchange for being able to basically abdicate encounter balancing responsibility. What I need to be able to do this is a system where balance is not required for reasonably fun and meaningful encounters -- so attrition, nonrenewable resources, retreat rules, limited refluffing, limited monster scaling, flatter math, that stuff.This is overwrought. We're not actually working together on the game. Both of us individually have essentially zero control over how it will turn out. We're just chattering about what we would like to see. There are things I would like to see that you wouldn't and vice versa. I think we should both just say plainly what we would like and for the most part let the designers worry about working out the compromise. Does it make it better if I say that I wouldn't begrudge you if you end up getting what you want instead of me getting what I want?How do you explain Mike Mearls' comments about 3e CR? Can you understand&nbsp; why I'm concerned about XP budgeting as a rule or a tool in DDN?It's not just that. There are many&nbsp; aspects of the encounter system that are affected one way or the other&nbsp; by which way you go on this as a guiding philosophy.I think they're planning to present the encounter balancing system as it&nbsp; is presented in 3e and 4e: as a core part of the rules, with the&nbsp; implication that if you're not using it, it's tantamount to houseruling&nbsp; it out of the game.I want it to be presented clearly as OPT-IN by the DM, rather than OPT-OUT. Only then would I say that it's presented as a tool rather than telling us how to play D&amp;D.Probably because I am not. I think ignorance can be productive, which is&nbsp; not really an unusual idea in general at all. People like being&nbsp; surprised. That's productive ignorance right there. Have you ever been&nbsp; upset at a movie trailer for giving too much away? Would it not sound&nbsp; ridiculous if I said you were &quot;espousing ignorance as a virtue&quot;?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Libramarian, post: 5979224, member: 6688858"] I don't know that there is that much divergence. Who doesn't like tactically compelling and narratively climactic encounters? I just prefer for them to happen a little less often and less predictably in exchange for being able to basically abdicate encounter balancing responsibility. What I need to be able to do this is a system where balance is not required for reasonably fun and meaningful encounters -- so attrition, nonrenewable resources, retreat rules, limited refluffing, limited monster scaling, flatter math, that stuff. This is overwrought. We're not actually working together on the game. Both of us individually have essentially zero control over how it will turn out. We're just chattering about what we would like to see. There are things I would like to see that you wouldn't and vice versa. I think we should both just say plainly what we would like and for the most part let the designers worry about working out the compromise. Does it make it better if I say that I wouldn't begrudge you if you end up getting what you want instead of me getting what I want? How do you explain Mike Mearls' comments about 3e CR? Can you understand why I'm concerned about XP budgeting as a rule or a tool in DDN? It's not just that. There are many aspects of the encounter system that are affected one way or the other by which way you go on this as a guiding philosophy. I think they're planning to present the encounter balancing system as it is presented in 3e and 4e: as a core part of the rules, with the implication that if you're not using it, it's tantamount to houseruling it out of the game. I want it to be presented clearly as OPT-IN by the DM, rather than OPT-OUT. Only then would I say that it's presented as a tool rather than telling us how to play D&D. Probably because I am not. I think ignorance can be productive, which is not really an unusual idea in general at all. People like being surprised. That's productive ignorance right there. Have you ever been upset at a movie trailer for giving too much away? Would it not sound ridiculous if I said you were "espousing ignorance as a virtue"? [/QUOTE]

Verification