Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 5304441" data-attributes="member: 18280"><img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/erm.png"&nbsp; class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":erm:" title="Erm&nbsp; &nbsp; :erm:" data-shortname=":erm:" />Care to tell me what my response is, then, too?<img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f615.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":confused:" title="Confused&nbsp; &nbsp; :confused:"&nbsp; data-smilie="5"data-shortname=":confused:" />Given an argument that SoD is bad because it leads to Broken Encounter A, B, C, and D, I have demonstrated repeatedly that none of those encounters need to be broken, and that, in general, the broken encounters also tend to lead to an inconsistent game milieu.&nbsp; If one allows for internal consistency and self-reference, one tends not to have the broken encounters as exampled.Does that mean that broken scenarios do not exist?&nbsp; Of course not.Does that mean that one cannot use a SoD monster -- or any monster -- in a way that is neither broken nor telegraphed?&nbsp; Of course not.What it means is that one need not use broken encounters.&nbsp; And one need not ditch SoD to not use broken encounters.And, Crom forbid that I have to object once more to the word &quot;obvious&quot;.&nbsp; Why does that word have to creep in again and again?&nbsp; Because signs of a medusa are present, it does not mean that they are &quot;obvious&quot;.&nbsp; That is a tired, tired straw man.&nbsp; You think that my point is that such signs must be, or even should be, obvious?The bigger the environmental footprint, the more obvious the signs.&nbsp; That is true, IRL, for just about everything.&nbsp; And, as IRL, that doesn't mean that the signs are observed, correctly interpretted, or heeded if understood.And, &quot;the more obvious the signs&quot; =/= NEON SIGN.&quot;2&quot; is a bigger number than &quot;1&quot;.&nbsp; If I say &quot;2&quot; is bigger than &quot;1&quot;, it does not imply that &quot;2&quot; is almost 2,000,000,000.Ah.&nbsp; Now your &quot;scary giant&quot; is level appropriate, and the PCs are at full health.&nbsp; More power to the animated goal posts, I suppose.&nbsp; Their movement rate far exceeds my own!&nbsp; <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/laugh.png"&nbsp; class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":lol:" title="Laughing&nbsp; &nbsp; :lol:" data-shortname=":lol:" />I guess if you can only imagine responsibility as having &quot;screwed up&quot; if things don't pan out the way you want them to, it makes sense to play a more padded game.&nbsp; I neither require not expect &quot;enough information to make a completely informed decision&quot; - I expect that adventuring is going to including having to &quot;make a gamble&quot;.&nbsp; Indeed, the fundamental tensions of the game are all gambles.This reminds me very much of certain other posts upthread, where the question seems to be &quot;But how can I be safe?&quot;The obvious answer is, &quot;Don't be an adventurer.&quot;The perhaps less obvious, but equally true, answer is, &quot;If you don't like risks, play a game without them.&nbsp; Choose a game where your safety isn't actually in question, or where your gambles are never big gambles.&nbsp; There are plenty of games like this to choose from.&nbsp; Heck, Gary Gygax even recommended one such game in the 1e DMG!&quot;RC</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Raven Crowking, post: 5304441, member: 18280"] :erm: Care to tell me what my response is, then, too? :confused: Given an argument that SoD is bad because it leads to Broken Encounter A, B, C, and D, I have demonstrated repeatedly that none of those encounters need to be broken, and that, in general, the broken encounters also tend to lead to an inconsistent game milieu. If one allows for internal consistency and self-reference, one tends not to have the broken encounters as exampled. Does that mean that broken scenarios do not exist? Of course not. Does that mean that one cannot use a SoD monster -- or any monster -- in a way that is neither broken nor telegraphed? Of course not. What it means is that one need not use broken encounters. And one need not ditch SoD to not use broken encounters. And, Crom forbid that I have to object once more to the word "obvious". Why does that word have to creep in again and again? Because signs of a medusa are present, it does not mean that they are "obvious". That is a tired, tired straw man. You think that my point is that such signs must be, or even should be, obvious? The bigger the environmental footprint, the more obvious the signs. That is true, IRL, for just about everything. And, as IRL, that doesn't mean that the signs are observed, correctly interpretted, or heeded if understood. And, "the more obvious the signs" =/= [SIZE="5"][COLOR="Yellow"]NEON SIGN[/COLOR][/SIZE]. "2" is a bigger number than "1". If I say "2" is bigger than "1", it does not imply that "2" is almost 2,000,000,000. Ah. Now your "scary giant" is level appropriate, and the PCs are at full health. More power to the animated goal posts, I suppose. Their movement rate far exceeds my own! :lol: I guess if you can only imagine responsibility as having "screwed up" if things don't pan out the way you want them to, it makes sense to play a more padded game. I neither require not expect "enough information to make a completely informed decision" - I expect that adventuring is going to including having to "make a gamble". Indeed, the fundamental tensions of the game are all gambles. This reminds me very much of certain other posts upthread, where the question seems to be "But how can I be [B][I]safe[/I][/B]?" The obvious answer is, "Don't be an adventurer." The perhaps less obvious, but equally true, answer is, "If you don't like risks, play a game without them. Choose a game where your safety isn't actually in question, or where your gambles are never big gambles. There are plenty of games like this to choose from. Heck, Gary Gygax even recommended one such game in the 1e DMG!" RC [/QUOTE]

Verification