Evenglare
Adventurer
The big one is the what... 20 minute adventure day ? Rules as written yes, this "theoretically" could be a problem. The thing is , I have been running campaigns for about 15 years now and I can honestly say I have never had this problem. This brings me to my question, does this ACTUALLY happen in your games? If so, why do you allow it?
The other thing is the so called "Caster / Melee" rift. Where wizards and other casters are basically much better than every one else. Has anyone ever actually encountered this in their games? I personally haven't, perhaps it's because my group isn't into min maxing or something. People who play fighters or monks or whatever, they have a fantastic time. They kill enemies just as much as any other character, and I personally have just never seen all of these horrible terrible game breaking elements that seem to be so rampant.
I'm not saying they don't exist but it just seems to me that given RPG's that have so many rules these type of things are bound to happen, that's where the DM comes in. The DM is there to be a referee, he is there to reign in things that may be game breaking. The DM should not allow free reign in their game letting players get what ever they want.
Games such as GURPS and HERO blatantly say something akin to..."there are game breaking skills (or powers or whatever ) presented here, as a game master and player, you need to work together to make sure you can create a character that is suited for the game you intend to run." This seems only logical and I dont know why so many D&D players don't under stand this.
In my opinion characters need some sort of drawback, in the form of ability scores or powers or whatever. I have come across people who say something similar to... "well some people don't think it's fun to run a character that sucks." or "I hate people who think you should make crappy character because it's better roleplaying" .
First off , in my opinion if you want to play in a game thats nothing but min maxing fighting awesomeness that's fine, but I don't run games like that. I believe there are many better mediums to do that in rather than running it as a table top rpg. Secondly , people who usually say they hate playing characters that have drawbacks because it's good roleplaying, obviously are not aware of what people term a 2 dimensional character.
In my opinion, all characters should have drawbacks, end of discussion. Stories are not fun or entertaining to read if your character has no chance of doing anything wrong. It takes away the element of story telling, and gaming. I cant imagine a person who would just love to kill everything all the time with no threats . It would get boring very quick. If you are playing a table top rpg for ego boosting and showing everyone you are better than them , I would say you are in this hobby for the wrong reasons. There are other hobbies out there that allow you just such a thing, video games, board games, table top war games, writing novels, going into the army , playing sports etc etc.
Any one agree, disagree? Have your own stories or thoughts on the matter?
The other thing is the so called "Caster / Melee" rift. Where wizards and other casters are basically much better than every one else. Has anyone ever actually encountered this in their games? I personally haven't, perhaps it's because my group isn't into min maxing or something. People who play fighters or monks or whatever, they have a fantastic time. They kill enemies just as much as any other character, and I personally have just never seen all of these horrible terrible game breaking elements that seem to be so rampant.
I'm not saying they don't exist but it just seems to me that given RPG's that have so many rules these type of things are bound to happen, that's where the DM comes in. The DM is there to be a referee, he is there to reign in things that may be game breaking. The DM should not allow free reign in their game letting players get what ever they want.
Games such as GURPS and HERO blatantly say something akin to..."there are game breaking skills (or powers or whatever ) presented here, as a game master and player, you need to work together to make sure you can create a character that is suited for the game you intend to run." This seems only logical and I dont know why so many D&D players don't under stand this.
In my opinion characters need some sort of drawback, in the form of ability scores or powers or whatever. I have come across people who say something similar to... "well some people don't think it's fun to run a character that sucks." or "I hate people who think you should make crappy character because it's better roleplaying" .
First off , in my opinion if you want to play in a game thats nothing but min maxing fighting awesomeness that's fine, but I don't run games like that. I believe there are many better mediums to do that in rather than running it as a table top rpg. Secondly , people who usually say they hate playing characters that have drawbacks because it's good roleplaying, obviously are not aware of what people term a 2 dimensional character.
In my opinion, all characters should have drawbacks, end of discussion. Stories are not fun or entertaining to read if your character has no chance of doing anything wrong. It takes away the element of story telling, and gaming. I cant imagine a person who would just love to kill everything all the time with no threats . It would get boring very quick. If you are playing a table top rpg for ego boosting and showing everyone you are better than them , I would say you are in this hobby for the wrong reasons. There are other hobbies out there that allow you just such a thing, video games, board games, table top war games, writing novels, going into the army , playing sports etc etc.
Any one agree, disagree? Have your own stories or thoughts on the matter?