Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="dkyle" data-source="post: 5855833" data-attributes="member: 70707">I don't expect it to be perfect.&nbsp; But the problem with your suggested modification is that it makes it effectively the same as 4E's encounter design, just in a roundabout way.&nbsp; That doesn't really argue in favor of Mike's Adventure XP pool idea as being viable, if the only way to make it work is to turn it into an encounter-based design.&nbsp; I said a particular system was useless, and that it needed to account for encounters to work.&nbsp; So, I guess, we're in agreement, since your counter argument was to make it account for encounters.To continue the analogy with cruise control, it isn't that I think it's imperfect.&nbsp; It's like if someone suggested that cars should have something where you can input an arrival time, and destination, and you'll just get there.&nbsp; But, of course, we can't do automatic steering or turns yet, or collision avoidance, so the driver has to do that.&nbsp; So we'll just assume those things, and have the car just figure out the right speed to maintain when on highways, and then we've just reinvented a more awkward to use cruise control.&nbsp; The essence of the original vision was lost.&nbsp; Your revision to the Adventure pool concept makes it fundamentally different, and not what I think Mike was suggesting.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="dkyle, post: 5855833, member: 70707"] I don't expect it to be perfect. But the problem with your suggested modification is that it makes it effectively the same as 4E's encounter design, just in a roundabout way. That doesn't really argue in favor of Mike's Adventure XP pool idea as being viable, if the only way to make it work is to turn it into an encounter-based design. I said a particular system was useless, and that it needed to account for encounters to work. So, I guess, we're in agreement, since your counter argument was to make it account for encounters. To continue the analogy with cruise control, it isn't that I think it's imperfect. It's like if someone suggested that cars should have something where you can input an arrival time, and destination, and you'll just get there. But, of course, we can't do automatic steering or turns yet, or collision avoidance, so the driver has to do that. So we'll just assume those things, and have the car just figure out the right speed to maintain when on highways, and then we've just reinvented a more awkward to use cruise control. The essence of the original vision was lost. Your revision to the Adventure pool concept makes it fundamentally different, and not what I think Mike was suggesting. [/QUOTE]

Verification