Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 3795099" data-attributes="member: 42582">What I had in mind is the marriage as encounter. It does not follow that cultivating a successful relationship is uninteresting, just because if I do it well the relationship has no chance of failing. It is not uninteresting even if I believe that I will do it well, and therefore there is very little chance of failure.I had in mind the marriage as an encounter, and one in which (by rough analogy) one has a mix of "at will" and "per encounter" resources.I'm "winning" these arguments because arguments that refute my position are not being made. In my experience this is pretty common in academia - at least in literary disciplines, but I'd be surprised if many undergraduate maths students are capable of finding holes in the proofs that their teachers are producing.Now most of what you say here is true - different experiences have different sources of interest. But one thing you suggest I don't agree with: it can be interesting to work out an argument that has a negligible chance of failing. In fact, that's my job: I'm not a practising lawyer, nor am I a debater, and so don't get the thrill of having to put my arguments in court. My job is to come up with arguments that persuade my students and my colleagues.Of course, when I'm addressing my colleagues, the likelihood of holeproof arguments first time round is less than with students, but the aim is to eventually tighten the thing up until it does withstand all criticism. The pleasure, for me, is not in the risk of being torn apart in a colloquium.But you are right that this activity might be uninteresting for some people. And of course, therefore, this example doesn't prove that per-encounter resources will produce fun D&D. It does show, however, that the general proposition "If you have no chance of failure, it won't be interesting" is false. It all depends on why there is no chance of failure - some ways of ensuring there is no chance of failure are themselves interesting. I think the 4e designers are capable of thinking of such ways in the context of RPG design. Jackelope King and I have both given examples of such mechanics from existing games.Not everyone will want to play that game - just as not everyone wants to play 1st ed AD&D. WoTC obviously has a reason to think that one sort of game will be more popular than the other.</blockquote>

Verification