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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 3793691" data-attributes="member: 18280">I most specifically did not include you, JK, in that assessment.  I believe that your contributions to this discussion have all been honest.  However, when you say "If there is no attrition, then an encounter is simply irrelevant because it in no mechanical way impacts a later encounter" this is wrong.  If there is no mechanical effect that lasts beyond a given encounter, and the players reasonably know or suspect this going into the encounter, the encounter is insignificant because the players know that, regardless of what happens within the encounter, nothing has changed.  An easy illustration of the same would be if, every time you landed on a property in Monopoly, you had to play a mini-game that had no effect on the game of Monopoly at all.  Very, very quickly, many groups would stop playing the mini-game.Conversely, given what I have seen of the setup of 4e, the only set of encounters where the players will not reasonably know or suspect that they are playing the "landed on the Monopoly property" mini-game are those encounters where there is a significant chance of loss.  If there is no significant chance of loss, players will not use resources that do not reset after encounters.  If there is no significant chance of loss, the encounter is unlikely to force the players to lose resources that do not reset after encounters.So, if I handwave away arguments that do not address what I am saying, it is because they have been answered dozens of times in the past.  3e also has the "landed on the Monopoly property" mini-game within it -- as exampled by 4 goblins facing a 10th level fighter.  If you can tell me why we are constantly told to simply ignore or handwave "4 goblins facing a 10th level fighter" encounters in 3e, you will also have answered both your and pemerton's quoted points.   Or, you could go back to my analysis, which also answers those points.RC</blockquote>

Verification