Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="gizmo33" data-source="post: 3767408" data-attributes="member: 30001">The statement that I made was an appeal for some constistency, and I've been pretty specific about the areas where it's lacking.  Some of you (and that's a general you) are accepting statements without debate when they're made by folks who support your conclusions but then object to virtually the same statement made by someone trying to make an opposite point.  The insinuation of bad faith is not completely out of line, but I actually hadn't made up my mind *why* this was happening.  In any case I don't think an apology is really necessary or productive in a case where it's mixed with an accusation.  And I'll say - again - that this directly contradicts Wyatt's premise.  Now if you want to change the premises upon which the line of reasoning is based, then we can start from the beginning.  But the basic topic of "Wyatt's changes are not solving Wyatt's problems" is not resolved.  I also think it's significant that while people have repeatedly said what you've said here, they are strangely reluctant to provide an example.  Actually, I would agree with what you're saying, but I don't think that the other types of encounters you're suggesting exist are frequent enough to have a significant bearing on this issue.  But as I said, I would find that easier to discuss if it were an established premise.  And as I said before (and I meant it), .0001% is a real value.  And it exists.  But it's probably not significant, though that is somewhat a matter of opinion.  I suspect that you believe (understandably) the chance to be higher.  But much higher?  Significant?  To me that's more the relevant question.Again, it went uncontested in Wyatt's blog entry that an EL=APL encounter did not post a "risk of death" that was suitable for making the encounter an interesting one.  I don't mind changing premises at some point but I'd rather start with Wyatt's since they seem to be uncontested by most folks that support the "per-encounter" system.It does, in fact, change that.  If you "ambush" the resting 20th level PCs with a single kobold scout, you would not have a TPK on your hands.  This case might be extreme but it is sufficient for showing the existence of a counter example, and most likely a range of counter examples.  The fact that you can make patrols easy in the design can mean that the patrols are manageable/escapable by the PCs, and thus not any more of a guarrantee of a TPK than any other encounter.</blockquote>

Verification