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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="shilsen" data-source="post: 3809889" data-attributes="member: 198">I'd say that if it were any more obvious that your particular lines of reasoning don't hold true for some people posting here, it would have to be hitting you on the head over and over with a clue bat. But clearly it isn't that obvious to you, just as a lot that you seem to regard as logical or self-evident or well-argued isn't to me. Which doesn't surprise me, since I never assume that what's evident to me is or should be evident to other people. I'd say the same sort of planning can easily occur in the non-attrition model too. Simple example: The last two sessions of my campaign involved my PCs attacking two armies over four days of game time. In each case, the PCs scouted out the enemy and got to choose the circumstances of the attack, with wildly variant strategy and tactics. Individual PCs also heavily changed the circumstances by doing things like launching a lone attack on the army, retreating and returning the next day, etc. Each army consisted of near 2000 individuals, including scouts, the bulk of the army, leader types of various kinds, etc. Every time the PCs changed tactics (which they did a lot) and did something off the wall (like setting up an explosive door in the path of the army!), it meant the people in the army reacted in various ways, which the PCs then reacted to and came up with new plans, and so on. Each encounter was the only fight for the day and was well outside the attrition model, but it required the same things you described above.</blockquote>

Verification