Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 6075805" data-attributes="member: 22779">But, how is your solution any different? &quot;I have a problem with the 15 minute adventuring day&quot; says a poster.&quot;Ok, make sure the time pressure keeps up and don't let them rest.&quot; comes the answer.&quot;But, I don't want to completely change my playstyle.&nbsp; I prefer to let the players set their own pace.&nbsp; And the adventures I tend to run are often site based, which means there generally isn't a huge time pressure,&quot; comes the reply.&quot;Too bad.&nbsp; If you want to run 3e, you must play it this way.&nbsp; If you play it any other way, you are doing it wrong.&quot; is the general response, nearly every time. IOW, the only way to make 3e work, I must adopt your playstyle.&nbsp; So much for the idea that 3e supports all these different playstyles.&nbsp; Which is why I, and others, talk about changing fundamental mechanics so that both playstyles are supported.&nbsp; This is exactly what 4e did do.&nbsp; If you want high pacing in 4e, go right ahead.&nbsp; If you want leisurely pacing, go ahead.&nbsp; It won't make much of a difference either way.&nbsp; But, in 3e, if I go with leisurely pacing, the 15 MAD creeps up and bites my on the petoot.&nbsp; Encounters become much more difficult to judge because the power of the party can be ramped up so high by magical buffs.&nbsp; So, yes, I do think your solution isn't as good.&nbsp; It forces me to adopt a playstyle I don't enjoy and doesn't actually address the problem directly.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 6075805, member: 22779"] But, how is your solution any different? "I have a problem with the 15 minute adventuring day" says a poster. "Ok, make sure the time pressure keeps up and don't let them rest." comes the answer. "But, I don't want to completely change my playstyle. I prefer to let the players set their own pace. And the adventures I tend to run are often site based, which means there generally isn't a huge time pressure," comes the reply. "Too bad. If you want to run 3e, you must play it this way. If you play it any other way, you are doing it wrong." is the general response, nearly every time. IOW, the only way to make 3e work, I must adopt your playstyle. So much for the idea that 3e supports all these different playstyles. Which is why I, and others, talk about changing fundamental mechanics so that both playstyles are supported. This is exactly what 4e did do. If you want high pacing in 4e, go right ahead. If you want leisurely pacing, go ahead. It won't make much of a difference either way. But, in 3e, if I go with leisurely pacing, the 15 MAD creeps up and bites my on the petoot. Encounters become much more difficult to judge because the power of the party can be ramped up so high by magical buffs. So, yes, I do think your solution isn't as good. It forces me to adopt a playstyle I don't enjoy and doesn't actually address the problem directly. [/QUOTE]

Verification