Dark Sun returns

[PhoneLobster]

If you want to pull out "someone somewhere likes it" as proof it has some redeeming quality (which is in itself silly since someone, somewhere likes say, self mutilation).

Then the natural extension of the "someone somewhere likes" it argument is that more people like 3rd edition, so 4e must be by your own argument worse.

[Data Vampire]

If you want to pull out "someone somewhere likes it" as proof it has some redeeming quality (which is in itself silly since someone, somewhere likes say, self mutilation).

One way or the other it is an "appeal to popularity".
Allot of people liking a thing doesn't make make that thing good.

[RandomCasualty2]

One way or the other it is an "appeal to popularity".
Allot of people liking a thing doesn't make make that thing good.

The appeal to popularity is a fallacy for things that are right or wrong. Just because everyone thinks the earth is flat for instance, doesn't mean it is. But it doesn't work for things that are in their nature subjective and actually a matter of opinion.

But in this case, "good" is a game concept solely determined by whether people enjoy playing it. Presumably, the people who like the game like it because it's fun to play. So really when you're talking about a game, generally popularity does make something good.

Now it doesn't mean that it's good for everyone. Some people may not like the game's style or theme. For instance, Starcraft is a popular game, and it's a good game. But it may not be something you personally enjoy for a variety of reasons, mainly because you may not like the basic game style. I personally find MMORPGs extremely boring, but a great many people will say they are good games.

[FatR]

4e is a commercial success.

I actually doubt that 4e is that much of a success. The available evidence points that it has failed to repeat the success of 3e and probably failed by a pretty big margin. We'll see whether this is true in a year or two.

[Pinniped]

The point is that having an elaborate rolling system based off of the assumption that 90% of characters will fail to make the roll at all on day 5 is dumb.

If that's how it actually works, then you are fine on day 3, on day 4 you have a 50% chance of losing a healing surge, on day 5 you lose two more healing surges, on day 6 you roll 20 more times for no goddam reason and then instantly die.

Personally, you are absolutely stretching, it doesn't say to keep rolling or to roll again on failure, it says to continue on and roll the next day, but either way, as Frank said, no matter what it actually means, there should be no rolling involved at all.

The "roll 20 times to confirm you are dead" problem requires just a tiny bit of common sense -- if the character is clearly dead, just declare it so. If a character jumps off a mountain, you wouldn't complain that it takes too long to roll 2000d10 to determine how much damage he took (or, using the fast alternative, calculating floor(2000/50)*25 + ((2000%50)/10)d10)).

Personally, I'd count a natural 20 as a success, so a character could still have a chance of living even if the DC had grown too high. Anyway, how often is this case even going to arise? A character should probably not be exposed to definitely-fatal thirst any more often than he ends up fighting a monster who can kill him in one attack. Either the player screwed up badly enough to warrant character death, or the DM is being cruel.

I really don't see how I'm stretching. Read the rule again:

"At the end of the time period (three weeks, three
days, or three minutes), the character must succeed on
a DC 20 endurance check. Success buys the character
another day (if hungry or thirsty), or round (if unable
to breathe).
...
When a character fails the check, he loses one
healing surge and must continue to make checks."

I really don't see how to read that except as "The player can't move on until he's rolled a success". How can you possibly read it otherwise?

By "there should be no rolling involved at all", do you mean in the (hopefully rare) case when the character can no longer make the DCs, or do you mean that rolling shouldn't be a part of the thirst rules at all?

[Username17]

Pinniped, the choice is between getting a new DC on subsequent days that is 5 points higher (if you succeed) or continuing to make the same test on subsequent days (if you fail). You do not have to roll all 37 checks looking for a nat 20 all at once the moment you run out of water.

-Username17

[violence in the media]

An encounter building system needs to be both fast and accurately able to place difficulty. The 3.5 system can do none of those, and thus it is a total piece of crap.

I think I've finally nailed exactly where we're disagreeing on this issue. I'm saying that I prefer the depth, customization, and "same game" quality of 3.x NPC generation, even with the players going off the rails, because I'm likely to have something immediately at hand that I can modify for use on the spot. Maybe it's a band of brigands that I bever used, an aristocrat, a merchant caravan, or a cleric that I wrote up for a different campaign. A few changes to appearance, personality, and maybe a skill or feat swap and we're good to go.

On the other hand, you seem to be requiring that every deviation from the rails of the adventure must be created, whole-cloth, on the spot. Is this the case? If so, why?

Now, maybe the reason this doesn't seem like such an issue for me is that I tend to construct rough ecologies for my campaigns. For example, Chimera occupy this cliff area here, and not that forest area over there. If the party is sacking a gnoll village, they're going to encounter a lot of gnolls. Maybe some jackals or hyenas. Hell, they might encounter only gnolls, jackals, and hyenas. This way, it's pretty easy to repurpose a creature for an unexpected role or encounter. Gnoll Bard --> Gnoll Merchant; Human Wizard --> Human Librarian. The scenario where, all of a sudden, I need an Ethereal Filcher with levels in a Psionic class simply won't happen.

[RandomCasualty2]

On the other hand, you seem to be requiring that every deviation from the rails of the adventure must be created, whole-cloth, on the spot. Is this the case? If so, why?

Mostly because I'll just throw out a description of an NPC that they happen to meet. I honestly don't know if they'll end up fighting him or not, but if they do I want to be able to easily create a statblock that coincides with my description.

So if I have a guy with a battleaxe, I want to be able to make an NPC with a battleaxe. If I have some guy described as a master of enchantment, I want ot be able to pull out a good enchanter.

Now, I don't really have a huge indexed binder of NPCs that I carry around. And it's really unlikely I would even have one of the right level even if I did. You level pretty fast in 3E, meaning that you have a very narrow window to recycle NPCs that don't get used. So often times when I try to fish through old NPCs, I don't find much that's particularly useable.

Now, maybe the reason this doesn't seem like such an issue for me is that I tend to construct rough ecologies for my campaigns. For example, Chimera occupy this cliff area here, and not that forest area over there. If the party is sacking a gnoll village, they're going to encounter a lot of gnolls. Maybe some jackals or hyenas. Hell, they might encounter only gnolls, jackals, and hyenas. This way, it's pretty easy to repurpose a creature for an unexpected role or encounter. Gnoll Bard --> Gnoll Merchant; Human Wizard --> Human Librarian. The scenario where, all of a sudden, I need an Ethereal Filcher with levels in a Psionic class simply won't happen.

Yeah. That sounds like a low level thing. In high to mid level games, generally you aren't going to have too many carbon copy characters. At that level, everyone is a unique individual, and you probably want them to feel unique. Nobody probably cares if Arnak the wizard is a lot like Parndor the wizard at first level. Because you only have two spells they're going to cast. Sleep and color spray. But at higher levels, everyone has their own schtick. Some people are uber chargers, some people are acid flask rogues and so on. And to make any schtick work, you need a lot of synergistic feats. Even a seemingly slight change like, goes from greatsword to bastard sword + shield, requires a lot of revamping of feats, classes, magic items and abilities.

At low level, like i said, the 3E system isnt' that hard. It takes virtually no time to plot out a 1st-3rd level fighter or bard. Even a wizard is relatively simple to stat out. But when you start getting to 9th level characters, it's a total bitch. Because generally there's an expectation that different 9th level characters should look somewhat different in terms of abilities. They also tend to require a great deal of specialization to be good at what they do, because that's the way 3.5 works.

I'm probably going to create a new topic just to discuss 3.5 NPC creation pitfalls at some point soon.

[Kaelik]

Pin, the whole point is that if it were somehow your crazy system, then rolling at all is basically superfluous.

Everyone survives exactly 3+End/5 days. Everyone. Ever. And on the last day they all roll infinity checks and die.

That's dumb and makes no sense.

But just in case, no. "Must continue to make checks" just means must continue to make checks next round day ect. Success lets you keep a surge, failure does not, that is the only difference.

[violence in the media]

Yeah. That sounds like a low level thing. In high to mid level games, generally you aren't going to have too many carbon copy characters. At that level, everyone is a unique individual, and you probably want them to feel unique. Nobody probably cares if Arnak the wizard is a lot like Parndor the wizard at first level. Because you only have two spells they're going to cast. Sleep and color spray. But at higher levels, everyone has their own schtick. Some people are uber chargers, some people are acid flask rogues and so on. And to make any schtick work, you need a lot of synergistic feats. Even a seemingly slight change like, goes from greatsword to bastard sword + shield, requires a lot of revamping of feats, classes, magic items and abilities.

You're right that was a simplistic low-level example, but citing your fighter-type examples, how many variations are you honestly going to have? Even in the teen levels? If you have a troop of super elite 14th level fighters serving as guards in the palace of the Star Emperor, are they really going to function with the diversity of a ragtag bunch of heroes? Or are they going to all be built to properly use their Halberds of Foe-Fucking, and largely carbon copies of each other? How much spell diversity are the wizards and clerics really going to have?

Not to mention that if you're running a game under the conceit that everyone over level X is a unique individual with their own schtick, then why is the party running into these people unexpectedly? You have to know that the Dread Wizard Arnak exists in order for the party to encounter him. If he exists and is going to play a recuring role, why not stat him up? If he isn't important, why does he need to be high level?

Look, you're probably either running a game where the PCs eventually outlevel most humanoid NPCs, or you're running a game where there are plenty of high level NPCs around. In either instance, you should be prepared. Ether because you have a unique character written up for the party to interact with, or because high level characters are so common, that you have a stable of generic ones.

[Voss]

4e is a commercial success. That has nothing to do with it being good. Likewise, Twilight is a commercial success. By your reasoning, Twilight is good. Are you telling me that Twilight has any redeeming qualities whatsoever? (Let me answer that for you: no, it does not. And 4e's ability to generate revenue doesn't prove that it's a well-designed game.)

I mean I hate Twilight, and I think it sucks. But a lot of people do find redeeming qualities about it.

I hate sex with children and I think its wrong. But a lot of people do find redeeming qualities about it.

*This is not a valid argument, ever*

[Spaghetti Western]

4e is a commercial success. That has nothing to do with it being good. Likewise, Twilight is a commercial success. By your reasoning, Twilight is good. Are you telling me that Twilight has any redeeming qualities whatsoever? (Let me answer that for you: no, it does not. And 4e's ability to generate revenue doesn't prove that it's a well-designed game.)

I mean I hate Twilight, and I think it sucks. But a lot of people do find redeeming qualities about it.

I hate sex with children and I think its wrong. But a lot of people do find redeeming qualities about it.

*This is not a valid argument, ever*

oh please this is ridiculous. I have never seen twilight and probably never will but if you asked it's intended audience if it was good they would say yes. Additionally there is a great deal of commercial success as supporting evidence. The redeeming quality is that is provided a lot of enjoyment for many people as measured by opinion and supported by commercial success. Just because of bunch of primarily young males on a rpg message board who are not it's target audience says it sucks does not make fact. By your fractured reasoning twilight fans (of which there are currently many) could say RPG's suck now prove it is not so without using any opinion of players or commercial statistics.

Your sex with children example is beyond retarded because a anyone with an ounce of common sense would be able to weigh your liking it (fan opinion) against the widely accepted and known opinion that it is infact not good and then use the current law against child pornography, and sex with minors as supporting facts that it isn't good. So they would say while you have the opinion that it is good, this is vast minority opinion which is not supported by any evidence.

All you have is your message board posts.

Try joining the real world and then engage in these discussions.

[MGuy]

I can't stand by while someone is justifying shit like Twilight. It was NOT a good movie and is SHIT for a book series. That is it. Most people have not ever even played an rpg so they haven't experienced it themselves. Ignorance of something does not == people not liking it. I SAW Twatlight and know from experience that it is shit. My judgment on it was pure because honestly before a friend of mine dragged me to the fucking movie to see the shit I hadn't even heard of it before. Upon seeing it, it becomes obvious that it is pure and utter garbage. Just like 99% of reality shows on TV, just like republicans (who hold massive popularity amongst their constituents even though they are provably garbage) just like anything else that targets people who don't have brains. 4e has its bad parts and good parts Twilight is shit and is about as defensible as right wing politics.

[norms29]

I mean I hate Twilight, and I think it sucks. But a lot of people do find redeeming qualities about it.

I hate sex with children and I think its wrong. But a lot of people do find redeeming qualities about it.

*This is not a valid argument, ever*

oh please this is ridiculous. I have never seen twilight and probably never will but if you asked it's intended audience if it was good they would say yes. Additionally there is a great deal of commercial success as supporting evidence. The redeeming quality is that is provided a lot of enjoyment for many people as measured by opinion and supported by commercial success. Just because of bunch of primarily young males on a rpg message board who are not it's target audience says it sucks does not make fact. By your fractured reasoning twilight fans (of which there are currently many) could say RPG's suck now prove it is not so without using any opinion of players or commercial statistics.

Your sex with children example is beyond retarded because a anyone with an ounce of common sense would be able to weigh your liking it (fan opinion) against the widely accepted and known opinion that it is infact not good and then use the current law against child pornography, and sex with minors as supporting facts that it isn't good. So they would say while you have the opinion that it is good, this is vast minority opinion which is not supported by any evidence.

All you have is your message board posts.

Try joining the real world and then engage in these discussions.

I have just lost a whatever respect I had earlier afforded you.
[/b]

[mandrake]

No one is saying Twilight is good, only that it has some perceived worth to its fans.

[Spaghetti Western]

I can't stand by while someone is justifying shit like Twilight. It was NOT a good movie and is SHIT for a book series. That is it. Most people have not ever even played an rpg so they haven't experienced it themselves. Ignorance of something does not == people not liking it. I SAW Twatlight and know from experience that it is shit. My judgment on it was pure because honestly before a friend of mine dragged me to the fucking movie to see the shit I hadn't even heard of it before. Upon seeing it, it becomes obvious that it is pure and utter garbage. Just like 99% of reality shows on TV, just like republicans (who hold massive popularity amongst their constituents even though they are provably garbage) just like anything else that targets people who don't have brains. 4e has its bad parts and good parts Twilight is shit and is about as defensible as right wing politics.

Are you a child a nit wit or a psychopath? Because those are the three types of people who base their reasoning on whatever their emotions tell them. So as the above illustrates when you debate you rely on whatever it is the fuck you feel and then decide that's the way the world should work. Who gives a fuck what you thought when you went to a movie or what you feel about a political point of view? Your opinion is worth shit.

[Psychic Robot]

That last line is getting sigged.

And I would advise against discussing politics on TGD. The majority of folks here have ideologies that are the product of arrogance, self-delusion, willful ignorance, unwarranted self-importance, and a drop of batshit insane. It's a shame to see such intelligent minds stew in their own rot, but you can't convince a man of truth when his foundations are a lie. Harsh words and factual evidence break against them like waves upon the rocks, and even gentle words incite them to lash out in a pale semblance of righteous fury.

[Spaghetti Western]

I can't stand by while someone is justifying shit like Twilight. It was NOT a good movie and is SHIT for a book series. That is it. Most people have not ever even played an rpg so they haven't experienced it themselves. Ignorance of something does not == people not liking it. I SAW Twatlight and know from experience that it is shit. My judgment on it was pure because honestly before a friend of mine dragged me to the fucking movie to see the shit I hadn't even heard of it before. Upon seeing it, it becomes obvious that it is pure and utter garbage. Just like 99% of reality shows on TV, just like republicans (who hold massive popularity amongst their constituents even though they are provably garbage) just like anything else that targets people who don't have brains. 4e has its bad parts and good parts Twilight is shit and is about as defensible as right wing politics.

To add to my above point that you are either a child, a nit wit or a psychopath. I will demonstrate how easy it would have been to use your fucking brain instead if being a message board fan boy fuck to provide evidence that twilight is not a good movie. I spent about 2 minutes searching and discovered that while twilight had commercial success on two widely used sites it did not rate very well especially when compared to movies which had similar box office results. This would a manner in which a reasoned person would make an argument.


http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1099212/ratings

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/twilight/

[Lago PARANOIA]

Look, Twilight beyond just not being written very well has some very contentious sticking points, mostly having to do with sexism.

The same thing could be said about motherfucking Dungeons and Dragons (any edition), with racism instead of sexism.

Now while nothing would make me happier than watching 4E fail and watching Andy Collins having to turn in his letter of resignation, pissing in the cheerios of people who are already enjoying it is just childish. Similarly, while I would love for the author to make a press conference stating in effect 'lol trolling' and telling her fanbase to read real books, it's not worth it to bash the fans of said product. Just lament the fact that no one is stepping up to the plate to give them a better product and move on with your life.

MGuy, you suck. Voss, you pretty much just Godwinned your point. I don't need to elaborate on that.

You dips.

[Psychic Robot]

As much as I've enjoyed my back-and-forth with Titanium Dragon, I do feel as though we should be using this thread for its intended purpose--namely, acting as a catch-all for the 4e rants-and-raves that appear so frequently. Rather than cluttering up the forum with bitching, I would request that we take the 4e complaints to that thread.

[MGuy]

I can't stand by while someone is justifying shit like Twilight. It was NOT a good movie and is SHIT for a book series. That is it. Most people have not ever even played an rpg so they haven't experienced it themselves. Ignorance of something does not == people not liking it. I SAW Twatlight and know from experience that it is shit. My judgment on it was pure because honestly before a friend of mine dragged me to the fucking movie to see the shit I hadn't even heard of it before. Upon seeing it, it becomes obvious that it is pure and utter garbage. Just like 99% of reality shows on TV, just like republicans (who hold massive popularity amongst their constituents even though they are provably garbage) just like anything else that targets people who don't have brains. 4e has its bad parts and good parts Twilight is shit and is about as defensible as right wing politics.

Are you a child a nit wit or a psychopath? Because those are the three types of people who base their reasoning on whatever their emotions tell them. So as the above illustrates when you debate you rely on whatever it is the fuck you feel and then decide that's the way the world should work. Who gives a fuck what you thought when you went to a movie or what you feel about a political point of view? Your opinion is worth shit.

I could ask you the same three questions with the same reasoning. You bring up that you believe people are ragging on the bad qualities of 4e because of opinion despite people bringing up FACTS in the debate.You suggest in your previous post that commercial success is an indicator of how good a product is. Then you equate Twilight to rpgs saying that it is provable that rpgs suck because many people don't buy them, another thing that equates commercial success to quality. So I respond by saying that I have EXPERIENCED Twilight and that EXPERIENCE provided me with shit for my trouble. While most people haven't even played an rpg and can't be counted on as being an indicator of whether it was successful or not. I also bring up republicans because for all their popularity there is concrete evidence that they lack in quality. So before you write off a post as shit maybe you should think about what people are fucking saying before you start lobbing personal attacks at people instead of arguing against what was said.

Edit for ghost posting: Yes I could have looked up the stats to prove it but that's far and away from what this discussion was over. Which was 4e and I didn't want to start a back and forth over something like Twilight. You apparently KNEW what I was saying anyway which I figured anyone would.

[Spaghetti Western]

I can't stand by while someone is justifying shit like Twilight. It was NOT a good movie and is SHIT for a book series. That is it. Most people have not ever even played an rpg so they haven't experienced it themselves. Ignorance of something does not == people not liking it. I SAW Twatlight and know from experience that it is shit. My judgment on it was pure because honestly before a friend of mine dragged me to the fucking movie to see the shit I hadn't even heard of it before. Upon seeing it, it becomes obvious that it is pure and utter garbage. Just like 99% of reality shows on TV, just like republicans (who hold massive popularity amongst their constituents even though they are provably garbage) just like anything else that targets people who don't have brains. 4e has its bad parts and good parts Twilight is shit and is about as defensible as right wing politics.

Are you a child a nit wit or a psychopath? Because those are the three types of people who base their reasoning on whatever their emotions tell them. So as the above illustrates when you debate you rely on whatever it is the fuck you feel and then decide that's the way the world should work. Who gives a fuck what you thought when you went to a movie or what you feel about a political point of view? Your opinion is worth shit.

I could ask you the same three questions with the same reasoning. You bring up that you believe people are ragging on the bad qualities of 4e because of opinion despite people bringing up FACTS in the debate.You suggest in your previous post that commercial success is an indicator of how good a product is. Then you equate Twilight to rpgs saying that it is provable that rpgs suck because many people don't buy them, another thing that equates commercial success to quality. So I respond by saying that I have EXPERIENCED Twilight and that EXPERIENCE provided me with shit for my trouble. While most people haven't even played an rpg and can't be counted on as being an indicator of whether it was successful or not. I also bring up republicans because for all their popularity there is concrete evidence that they lack in quality. So before you write off a post as shit maybe you should think about what people are fucking saying before you start lobbing personal attacks at people instead of arguing against what was said.

Uh no dip shit. I didn't say one fucking thing about 4e because I don't give a 2 shits about 4e. What I said is that it is extremely retarded to state as fact something sucks based only on your shit opinion and ignore evidence to the contrary. It would be like me saying ice cream sucks, now prove it doesn't but you can't give me numbers of how many people like it or how well it sells etc. It's like a child putting their fingers in their ears and shouting "nananana" I can't hear you. Instead I should just say I don't like the taste of ice cream.

I have no problem with someone stating how ever they want to that something sucks in their opinion or experience. But like I said when debating that is worth shit. So when someone tells me something, and I don't care what it is, in fact sucks I expect that to be backed up by something other than their opinion and I don't expect them to pretend that real evidence which anyone with an ounce of reason would accept doesn't exist or isn't relevant.

also I don't give two shits what you think about politics, you've already demonstrated yourself to be at best a nit wit who shouldn't be voting or a child who can't vote. If I wanted to get political opinion I would go to place where people provide them intelligently.

[RandomCasualty2]

I mean I hate Twilight, and I think it sucks. But a lot of people do find redeeming qualities about it.

I hate sex with children and I think its wrong. But a lot of people do find redeeming qualities about it.

*This is not a valid argument, ever*

No it isn't. Not when you're talking about whether something is "good", because good is entirely determined by personal opinion.

You think sex with children is immoral, but that doesn't have anything to do with subjective pleasure that's derived from it. There's no moral issue to do with 4E versus 3E or whether Twilight is a good movie. 4E isn't ruining anyone's life or causing people to commit suicide.

It's solely a matter of opinion as to whether this game is good. And yes, that's generally settled in the court of public opinion. Now it's one thing to say "The game was only popular because its competition sucked, or had insufficient advertising." It's quite another to disregard what other people like because you feel that your opinion is somehow more valuable than theirs.

Of course, just because other people like it, doesn't mean that you will too. There's really no objective measure to rate how much fun something is to play, and it just so happens the good games are the ones that remain popular and stand the test of time.

It's generally why we tend to refer to things being good within a specific category or genre. "Good for a casual dungeon crawl RPG" for instance for 4E. I'm not really sure what Twilight fans would say the movie is good for, I guess some kind of teenage girl love story. Who the fuck knows.

[MGuy]

Are you a child a nit wit or a psychopath? Because those are the three types of people who base their reasoning on whatever their emotions tell them. So as the above illustrates when you debate you rely on whatever it is the fuck you feel and then decide that's the way the world should work. Who gives a fuck what you thought when you went to a movie or what you feel about a political point of view? Your opinion is worth shit.

I could ask you the same three questions with the same reasoning. You bring up that you believe people are ragging on the bad qualities of 4e because of opinion despite people bringing up FACTS in the debate.You suggest in your previous post that commercial success is an indicator of how good a product is. Then you equate Twilight to rpgs saying that it is provable that rpgs suck because many people don't buy them, another thing that equates commercial success to quality. So I respond by saying that I have EXPERIENCED Twilight and that EXPERIENCE provided me with shit for my trouble. While most people haven't even played an rpg and can't be counted on as being an indicator of whether it was successful or not. I also bring up republicans because for all their popularity there is concrete evidence that they lack in quality. So before you write off a post as shit maybe you should think about what people are fucking saying before you start lobbing personal attacks at people instead of arguing against what was said.

Uh no dip shit. I didn't say one fucking thing about 4e because I don't give a 2 shits about 4e. What I said is that it is extremely retarded to state as fact something sucks based only on your shit opinion and ignore evidence to the contrary. It would be like me saying ice cream sucks, now prove it doesn't but you can't give me numbers of how many people like it or how well it sells etc. It's like a child putting their fingers in their ears and shouting "nananana" I can't hear you. Instead I should just say I don't like the taste of ice cream.

I have no problem with someone stating how ever they want to that something sucks in their opinion or experience. But like I said when debating that is worth shit. So when someone tells me something, and I don't care what it is, in fact sucks I expect that to be backed up by something other than their opinion and I don't expect them to pretend that real evidence which anyone with an ounce of reason would accept doesn't exist or isn't relevant.

also I don't give two shits what you think about politics, you've already demonstrated yourself to be at best a nit wit who shouldn't be voting or a child who can't vote. If I wanted to get political opinion I would go to place where people provide them intelligently.

See previous post edit about the discussion being about 4e.

[Pinniped]

Pinniped, the choice is between getting a new DC on subsequent days that is 5 points higher (if you succeed) or continuing to make the same test on subsequent days (if you fail). You do not have to roll all 37 checks looking for a nat 20 all at once the moment you run out of water.

-Username17

Ah, I see how you could read it that way now. I disagree -- I'll grant you that the "must succeed" line by itself is ambiguous, but the "success buys the character another day," one isn't. As I understand it, your interpretation would require reading that as "success [or a healing surge] buys the character another day".

If the line about the penalties of failure read, "When a character fails the check, he ... must continue to make checks [at the same DC]", I'd agree with you, especially in context of the previous line about success raising future DCs.

Everyone survives exactly 3+End/5 days. Everyone. Ever. And on the last day they all roll infinity checks and die.

That's dumb and makes no sense.

Oh, okay. That's an exaggeration, though -- consider one chararacter with 0 endurance, and another with 4. With no "crits", both have an upper limit of four days without water, but the one with 0 endurance will likely lose many more surges on day 3, and potentially die before making it to his final day. He'll lose those surges on day 3, after having spent surges on combat and whatever else, and he'll start day 4 without them, making him more fragile on both days.

Furthermore, it doesn't bother me that a character can only last x days without water, where x is determined by his endurance. That sounds reasonable to me. Your endurance determines how long you can live, and at the same time, it determines how well you can ignore/overcome the symptoms of dehydration. You're not rolling to make your liver work without water, you're rolling to see how well your character is managing to fare with a failing liver. At some point, no amount of willpower is going to help you. It's simultaneously a measure of physical endurance ("my training will let me survive another day out here") and mental endurance ("I won't let the feeling in my gut distract me").