Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="BryonD" data-source="post: 6659364" data-attributes="member: 957">I'm thrilled that you have come around.Again, back when 4E was in print you, and Hussar, and many other highly PRAISED this innovation of mathematically purity and were highly critical of me and others for promoting the approach you have described here.You described in detail how it was the duty of the DM to always make sure that the SAME WALL was harder to climb if and when the party came back later, the lock would always be better, etc, etc.&nbsp; You made it clear that this applied to anything and everything.You keep going back to &quot;consistent nature&quot; and using references as if this is a key point.&nbsp; That is exactly what I do.&nbsp; But I never need to know if a character is Level 1 or level 13 in order to reference fiction or nature or be consistent.&nbsp; Again, I'm thrilled to know that doing things the 3E way is considered correct</blockquote>

[QUOTE="BryonD, post: 6659364, member: 957"] I'm thrilled that you have come around. Again, back when 4E was in print you, and Hussar, and many other highly PRAISED this innovation of mathematically purity and were highly critical of me and others for promoting the approach you have described here. You described in detail how it was the duty of the DM to always make sure that the SAME WALL was harder to climb if and when the party came back later, the lock would always be better, etc, etc. You made it clear that this applied to anything and everything. You keep going back to "consistent nature" and using references as if this is a key point. That is exactly what I do. But I never need to know if a character is Level 1 or level 13 in order to reference fiction or nature or be consistent. Again, I'm thrilled to know that doing things the 3E way is considered correct [/QUOTE]

Verification