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: 3807078" data-attributes="member: 30001">Yes, I really meant "deadly per unit of playing time".  Life is 100% deadly over a long enough time period.   <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> I don't see how what RC and I are saying is different on this particular topic exactly.  Per-encounter resource situation (combined with the general nature of my game style,  I guess) would result in a higher deadliness per encounter.  I didn't realize were were focusing on "deadliness resulting from poor play decisions".  I actually believe that having opinions about when someone else is playing poorly is too presumptuous on my part.  I let the dice speak for when people are playing poorly, if there is even such a thing.  I don't always know what the facts look like to the players on the other side of the screen and I'm not comfortable with punishing them for doing something wrong.  That means, to me, all encounters just reduce down to a probability, and if making a mistake is 20% likely among my group, it's no different to me than if they rolled a dice to resolve it.Healing is a resource like all others IMO.  If it is on a per-day basis then the 15 minute adventuring day issues, and all of the "plot-interfering" issues still exist.  In fact, given your expressed preferences for how you run the game, I would suspect that limits on healing would defeat the purpose of the other changes.  I would assume that my players would choose goals that would match the goals that their characters already have in 3E.  And in any case I think it's too presumptuous of me to assume I know what's in their minds.  I don't like having to have an opinion about alignment for the same reason, and if action/hero points requires me to judge my players' motivations, I would be uncomfortable with that.  Ok, I think we agree on this, I was just pointing out that it was essentially a matter of opinion whereas what you wrote sounded more certain than that.I agree that this is a basic difference in game style that creates the difference of opinion here.  However, sometimes I feel like people's stated play-styles aren't matching the reality.  I have no idea if this applies to you specifically or not - but if people who advocate per-encounter resources are also fudging dice and making judgements about how their players run their characters, then I would want that to be more explicitly stated.  IME DMs are not always honest about how they're running the game.I agree with this.  I think I have two reasons for being involved in this.  One, because the statements in support of all per-encounter were sounding a little universal, rather than a matter of taste.  And secondly because some of the statements which were identifying problems weren't recognizing that there were a set of standard solutions to that problem.  So they were going to "fix" something that already had a "fix" to it and apparently they weren't familiar with that.  I'm not sure if you fit into either category.My prior statement anticipates this line of reasoning.  I don't see any reason to advocate for something and then not provide the full evidence for it.  How "commercially valuable" would the statement be that "people like per-encounter resource games" - that's essentially what Wyatt is saying only he's clearly guessing or basing it on his single opinion.  Either he expects people to believe him or he doesn't, and his competitors are among those people.I'm not saying WoTC doesn't do market research in general.  I'm talking about on this specific problem.  And really I'm wondering about the role that such research can play in the development of rules in general.  You can't really get much informative about a hypothetical rule change for a game that people haven't played yet.  People can tell you what they don't like in the current rules, but I'm less certain that people can make coherent and consistent suggestions for how to fix it.  Things that seem good in the abstract will often turn out to be less so in practice.</blockquote>

Verification