Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DEFCON 1" data-source="post: 6290022" data-attributes="member: 7006">Jumping in on the discussion that you're all having... I don't think it's only about a 4E / XE edition split in terms of NPCs running away and bringing back reinforcements... it's also about individual DMs and the way they see the reasoning of having fights in their world, and how those fights come about and are filled.When an NPC that was let free to run off comes running back with reinforcements... the quantity and power of those reinforcements is determined many different ways based upon individual DMs.  For some DMs (like pemerton it seems)... the decision on the reinforcements comes down to what will make this new fight interesting in and of itself.  And the monster group that shows up is based almost entirely on creating that interesting fight (based partly on the monsters further in the dungeon that might show up).  For other DMs (like Elf Witch it seems)... the decision on the reinforcements comes down to who that NPC might logically have come into contact with, and convinced to join the fight.  If (according to the map the DM has) the NPC could only have run into two other NPCs, then those three NPCs return to attack the party (if them attacking makes sense.)  But if the NPC could realistically come across several dozen other monsters, all of whom would want to see the party thrown out or killed... then those two dozen monsters show up and possibly kick the ass of the entire party.In the former scenario... some DMs would say that you were making arbitrary decisions on who shows up (based upon making an interesting and fun fight), but which makes no actual sense in the world of the game.  In the latter scenario... some DMs would say that if only 3 NPCs are going to show up to attack the party and it's blatantly obvious (based on the power of those 3 NPCs) that they serve no real threat, then why bother having that boring combat at all?  (And this is where GX.Sigma is right in that because 4E fights tend to be longer affairs, having one that is a fait accompli which could waste an hour or two in a 4E game really makes the fight superfluous.)And this kind of thing can't be solved by a single ruleset.  Not in the least.  We HAVE to have options for both sides available to us, because I don't think there's even a close-to-consensus on one side or another.  We're much more likely having a 50-50 opinion on the two scenarios than a 90-10 (which might justify setting a default with little to no optional modules included.)Any time the opinions on certain rules is more of a 50-50 affair... I think it usually ends up being that both sides have their rules represented in the game, with the simplest adjudication being the base rule, and the more complex one being Rules Module #1.  Which in many cases I think we're all usually okay with.</blockquote>

Verification