Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 4708166" data-attributes="member: 18280">LOL.Where were you when I was discussing the (many) failings of 3.5?The CR System is a predictive engine, but if you read the DMG, you will note that it makes no prediction of being perfect in its predictions.&nbsp; <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/laugh.png"&nbsp; class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":lol:" title="Laughing&nbsp; &nbsp; :lol:" data-shortname=":lol:" />&nbsp; I do not agree with the argument that because a prediction fails to take into account all possible elements (which is, in and of itself, an impossible task), the game has failed to run as designed.But, going from this, the encounter was designed to follow the predictive model.&nbsp; The predictive model predicted a given outcome.&nbsp; The investment in the outcome (not the investment in the model) causes the fudging.&nbsp; I do not believe that anyone, anywhere, ever fudged because he believed it protected the (questionable at best) integrity of the CR System.&nbsp; I do believe that many people in many places have fudged because they used the CR System in an attempt to control the odds, and that attempt failed without fudging.It is also true, as you say, that not fudging the dice is also in service of a desired outcome.&nbsp; The desired outcomes, however, in these two cases are polar bears and pine martins.&nbsp; Close enough to be related, but not the same animal.RC</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Raven Crowking, post: 4708166, member: 18280"] LOL. Where were you when I was discussing the (many) failings of 3.5? The CR System is a predictive engine, but if you read the DMG, you will note that it makes no prediction of being perfect in its predictions. :lol: I do not agree with the argument that because a prediction fails to take into account all possible elements (which is, in and of itself, an impossible task), the game has failed to run as designed. But, going from this, the encounter was designed to follow the predictive model. The predictive model predicted a given outcome. The investment in the outcome (not the investment in the model) causes the fudging. I do not believe that anyone, anywhere, ever fudged because he believed it protected the (questionable at best) integrity of the CR System. I do believe that many people in many places have fudged because they used the CR System in an attempt to control the odds, and that attempt failed without fudging. It is also true, as you say, that [I][B]not fudging the dice[/B][/I] is also in service of a desired outcome. The desired outcomes, however, in these two cases are polar bears and pine martins. Close enough to be related, but not the same animal. RC [/QUOTE]

Verification