Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 3822846" data-attributes="member: 18280">That isn't evidence; it is speculation.  I can get that easily enough anywhere on the Internet.  Please provide your evidence.Yup.  Definitely said that, and still hold it to be true.  Wish you hadn't then snipped the part where I then concluded that win/lose scenarios would increase because they remained significant regardless.  You presented a mechanically significant win/lose encounter.  Exactly what I predicted, and which you (for some reason best known to you) chose not to include in your quotation.You then brought up M&M, an excellent game, whereupon I immediately agreed that within the paradigm of that game mechanical significance could exist without resource attrition.  Indeed, I went so far as to claim that if a game has only per-encounter abilities, it would be easier to reach a mechanical threshold of significance than with the mixed bag that 4e will apparently present.I also, time and again, ensured to remind others -- yourself included -- that "threshold of mechanical significance" was a term that did not imply all forms of significance in an encounter.  Shilsen gave an example of mechanical significance independent of resource attrition within the D&D paradigm, which was not win/lose, and therefore fell outside the bounds of the argument I made.  I happily acknowledged that he was correct, although I do not believe one can hang a game on the type of mechanical significance he used.  The problem is, of course, that I believe WotC is trying to hang the game on mechanical significance of the type Shilsen described.You demonstrated an encounter with no net change in resources, but which included a reasonalbe possiblity of loss, alllowing for as much change in resources as is possible within the paradigm of the game chosen.   Shilsen, OTOH, demonstrated an encounter with no net change in resources, no reasonable possibility of loss, and within the paradigm of a game with resource attritrion.  It would be accurate to claim that, with the exception Shilsen provided, I do not believe that an encounter can be mechanically significant, within the context of a system with resource attrition without a net change, or the reasonable possibility of a net change in resources from before to after the encounter. I will therefore assume that, either through lack of clarity on my part or otherwise, your misrepresentation is unintentional.</blockquote>

Verification