Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="LordEntrails" data-source="post: 9286281" data-attributes="member: 6804070">Please don't misquote me. At no point did I say anything close to &quot;everyone&quot; or do I imply anything like &quot;rabid&quot;. Yes I understand it is fun to take someone's viewpoint and take it to an absurd extreme. But that's not a useful discussion.Yes the tool (and CR ratings) could be more accurate. But imo doing so could be a BAD thing. And it would be a bad thing in many use cases.Look, there are folks, and you might fit in this group, that want precision. To know that Encounter X against Party 1 will result in Y (% resource use, HP expenditure, % character death, etc).I get it, but here's why I think it would be bad for the community (on a whole, not for every person in every group, but a sum that is more bad than good). Primarily, any such tool would have to make assumptions about the encounters. A big part of this is the tactics used by the players, but also includes things like optimization level of the characters and the equipment usable to them. (Yes, the second of these would be known to DDB, putting even more emphasis on the first.)Now, how is this tool going to know the tactical ability of the players? How is it going to know if the players have chosen to play characters that are adverse to violence? Or enjoy solving combat in outrageous and dramatic (but tactically poor) actions? IT won't.But the tool is going to strongly imply that if a group uses more resources or is less successful than &quot;they should be&quot;, that the Players are doing something wrong. To me, implying a group is playing poorly because they are using too many resources, are not making tactical ideal choices, or otherwise not playing based upon someone else's assumptions, is a &quot;Bad Thing&quot;.Now, putting this more precise D&amp;D Digital platform would mean that these assumptions would become the expectation. These assumptions would become &quot;canon&quot;. Do you not see the harm such would do to the community?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="LordEntrails, post: 9286281, member: 6804070"] Please don't misquote me. At no point did I say anything close to "everyone" or do I imply anything like "rabid". Yes I understand it is fun to take someone's viewpoint and take it to an absurd extreme. But that's not a useful discussion. Yes the tool (and CR ratings) could be more accurate. But imo doing so [I]could [/I]be a BAD thing. And it would be a bad thing in many use cases. Look, there are folks, and you might fit in this group, that want precision. To know that Encounter X against Party 1 will result in Y (% resource use, HP expenditure, % character death, etc). I get it, but here's why I think it would be bad for the community (on a whole, not for every person in every group, but a sum that is more bad than good). Primarily, any such tool would have to make assumptions about the encounters. A big part of this is the tactics used by the players, but also includes things like optimization level of the characters and the equipment usable to them. (Yes, the second of these would be known to DDB, putting even more emphasis on the first.) Now, how is this tool going to know the tactical ability of the players? How is it going to know if the players have chosen to play characters that are adverse to violence? Or enjoy solving combat in outrageous and dramatic (but tactically poor) actions? IT won't. But the tool is going to strongly imply that if a group uses more resources or is less successful than "they should be", that the Players are doing something wrong. To me, implying a group is playing poorly because they are using too many resources, are not making tactical ideal choices, or otherwise not playing based upon someone else's assumptions, is a "Bad Thing". Now, putting this more precise D&D Digital platform would mean that these assumptions would become the expectation. These assumptions would become "canon". Do you not see the harm such would do to the community? [/QUOTE]

Verification