Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9183331" data-attributes="member: 6790260">If only folks had taken that attitude with systems that were actually designed to clearly tell you what things do, and left the storytelling for you to figure out.Wish more DMs had an interest in the second clause of that last sentence. I find far too many these days have little to no interest in having player involvement in story-creation. It's the DM's world. The players just happen to witness it, and maybe pick which of two pre-constructed alternate timelines gets promoted to canon.This &quot;random monsters are there to enforce the expected rest cycle&quot; thing has absolutely been advocated many times on this very forum, and indirectly referenced in this thread. It's why someone (Oofta, I think?) referred to resting too frequently as an &quot;exploit&quot; that needed to be quashed. Random monster encounters are that &quot;quash that exploit&quot; mechanic.It's not a matter of trust. It's a matter of making sense of what's been said. The person I quoted explicitly used the word &quot;infinite&quot; to refer to the reserves which could be drawn upon. That's a nuclear flyswatter if I've ever heard of one. Truly infinite reserves, which can be brought in by portals at a moment's notice, from opponents with a vested interest in ensuring the party fails at their goals? Then the party will lose. The only other option is that the opposition are either so lazy, stupid, or arrogant that they never choose to bring in these reinforcements (which boggles the mind that they could have acquired such forces but be so incapable of using them...while still somehow being a threat), or they are abiding by some rule completely outside the narrative which prevents them from using their actually infinite reserves, meaning, we're right back to where we were, the problem of finite reserves that can only be deployed under valid circumstances, completely defeating the whole point of this nuclear option.I'm not the one who used the word &quot;infinite.&quot; The person I replied to did. It was not presented as hyperbole. If I was supposed to understand it as an exaggeration, that was very poorly communicated.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 9183331, member: 6790260"] If only folks had taken that attitude with systems that were actually designed to clearly tell you what things do, and left the storytelling for you to figure out. Wish more DMs had an interest in the second clause of that last sentence. I find far too many these days have little to no interest in having player involvement in story-creation. It's the DM's world. The players just happen to witness it, and maybe pick which of two pre-constructed alternate timelines gets promoted to canon. This "random monsters are there to enforce the expected rest cycle" thing has absolutely been advocated many times on this very forum, and indirectly referenced in this thread. It's why someone (Oofta, I think?) referred to resting too frequently as an "exploit" that needed to be quashed. Random monster encounters [I]are[/I] that "quash that exploit" mechanic. It's not a matter of trust. It's a matter of making sense of what's been said. The person I quoted explicitly used the word "infinite" to refer to the reserves which could be drawn upon. That's a nuclear flyswatter if I've ever heard of one. Truly [I]infinite[/I] reserves, which can be brought in by portals at a moment's notice, from opponents with a vested interest in ensuring the party fails at their goals? Then [B][I]the party will lose.[/I][/B] The only other option is that the opposition are either so lazy, stupid, or arrogant that they never choose to bring in these reinforcements (which boggles the mind that they could have acquired such forces but be so incapable of using them...while still somehow being a threat), or they are abiding by some rule completely outside the narrative which prevents them from using their actually infinite reserves, meaning, we're right back to where we were, the problem of finite reserves that can only be deployed under valid circumstances, completely defeating the whole point of this nuclear option. I'm not the one who used the word "infinite." The person I replied to did. It was not presented as hyperbole. If I was supposed to understand it as an exaggeration, that was very poorly communicated. [/QUOTE]

Verification