Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="BryonD" data-source="post: 4189602" data-attributes="member: 957">I would certainly say that I am significantly less hung up on the sweet spot than you are.&nbsp; But I think it is a big overstatement to go from my wider tolerance to what it fun is to a rejection of a sweet spot at all.&nbsp;No, exactly the opposite, I'm saying I like a wider range of greys.No, again, I'm saying that the DM controls when the D20 is the controlling factor and when the bonuses and targets are the controlling factor.&nbsp; The majority of the time the bonuses and targets are the controlling portion. You are ignoring what I said in my very first post in this thread.&nbsp; It was you that moved the focus of conversation to extremes.&nbsp; I simply responded to your subsequent examples of irrelevance.&nbsp; &nbsp; And when the DM chooses to allow those fringe irrelevance episodes to happen, it is because the DM wants them for the kind of fun that brings.No.&nbsp; I've described a game where the blend of luck control and &quot;right&quot; choice control is a tool that may be adjusted by a good DM.&nbsp; And I think the clear point here is that there is not at all a &quot;right&quot; answer to that question.I don't find the &quot;sweet spot feel&quot; to be established on a roll by roll basis.&nbsp; To me it is much more important how encounters and even strings of encounters flow.&nbsp; And if the fighter never gets that bit of &quot;miss only on a one&quot; then the game is going to be outside the sweet spot because being that level of badass is part of it.&nbsp; But it is way off to say that defines the game. They remain an exception.&nbsp; So trying to use those exceptions to define the total game feel is very wrong.&nbsp; But just because they are the exception doesn't mean I would look well on removing them.&nbsp; It is a package deal.&nbsp; I like having my cake and eating it too.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="BryonD, post: 4189602, member: 957"] I would certainly say that I am significantly less hung up on the sweet spot than you are. But I think it is a big overstatement to go from my wider tolerance to what it fun is to a rejection of a sweet spot at all. No, exactly the opposite, I'm saying I like a wider range of greys. No, again, I'm saying that the DM controls when the D20 is the controlling factor and when the bonuses and targets are the controlling factor. The majority of the time the bonuses and targets are the controlling portion. You are ignoring what I said in my very first post in this thread. It was you that moved the focus of conversation to extremes. I simply responded to your subsequent examples of irrelevance. And when the DM chooses to allow those fringe irrelevance episodes to happen, it is because the DM wants them for the kind of fun that brings. No. I've described a game where the blend of luck control and "right" choice control is a tool that may be adjusted by a good DM. And I think the clear point here is that there is not at all a "right" answer to that question. I don't find the "sweet spot feel" to be established on a roll by roll basis. To me it is much more important how encounters and even strings of encounters flow. And if the fighter never gets that bit of "miss only on a one" then the game is going to be outside the sweet spot because being that level of badass is part of it. But it is way off to say that defines the game. They remain an exception. So trying to use those exceptions to define the total game feel is very wrong. But just because they are the exception doesn't mean I would look well on removing them. It is a package deal. I like having my cake and eating it too. [/QUOTE]

Verification