Search results

I can't really agree with how you characterize the DM/Player relationship in my examples. I think you're adding things that really are not there. Keep in mind that my examples describe an extremely small slice of the general D&D action. In fact, my examples refer directly to the phase in which...

I don't like daily resources simply because the "day" is a terrible unit for measuring time and refreshing resources in RPGs. I don't think it makes sense from a story perspective, and it doesn't work at all from a gameplay perspective. It forces the story to conform to a "per-day" structure...

Yeah, Hasbro pretty much has no reason to sell. They know they can make more money off of such a famous brand than anyone is willing to pay for the rights. They are more likely to shelve D&D as an RPG entirely and bring it out only once a decade for a movie licensing deal than they would be to...

I don't particularly care for the tone of your post, so I'll just say this. I didn't phrase the "mother may I?" situation in the "worst possible light", not did I phrase the alternative in the "nest possible light". If I did either, my example would be very, very different. I tried my best to...

The problem with this is that there is always going to be a difference between the reality as the DM imagines it and the reality as the players imagine. It is simply impossible to express every nuance of a complex situation to multiple people with only vocal cues. This is simply because...

Well, that is good to know. In that case, I simply ask that you understand that the thought's you've put forward don't really describe how many of us feel. I don't regret expressing how your post offended me, but I will apologize if you found my "silly" comment to be a bit rude. I can sometimes...

You know, let's just stop you right here. I hate it when people twist my views of weakening the role of DM and removing "mother may I?" mechanics into this particular phrasing. People who are expressing concern over this subject are not doing so out of some kind of trauma born of distrust of...

I'm not too interested in seeing D&D try to turn itself into a simulator of "authentic" medieval combat. It's a fantasy game defined by wizards and, well, dungeons and dragons, not 15th Century Europe: The Game. It would have to have guns in the core rules to be authentic in that way, anyways...

Absolutely, though I'm not entirely sure if Monk is more equivalent to the Fighter or the Slayer... If Monk is the category, then what do you call the class? If Monk is the class, then what category does it belong to? Either way, what goes along with it? It would be interesting either way, I...

I think this is the right direction to approach things from. Look at what was done with the Essentials classes I referenced earlier. In Essentials, "Fighter" isn't a class; it's a category of related classes. The two types of Fighter, the Knight and the Slayer, are really two entirely separate...

Indeed. :) I miss that thread. It was really sad to watch a thread with a goal I so strongly agreed with suffocate under a mass of arguments and get locked. A real shame... I certainly would support Final Fantasy 1 or Fire Emblem style class advancement, but I'm not sure if reviving d20 Modern's...

Actually, I'd love it if those last three were also separate classes. We don't need a Wizard. We need a Necromancer, an Elemental Mage, and a Psion. That would seriously make the game better. There really isn't any point in trying to combine classes. A class-based game thrives on having more...

Wow, a lot came up in response to my comments. I won't be able to respind to it all but I'll try to get some of the bigger points covered. Yes. If they have the same cost, then they should have the same amount of usefulness to the game. Why should it be otherwise? Ideally, yes. If the game...

It's complicated, but here's my stab at it. Balance basically means that the game is fundamentally fair and honest. If the game presents something as a choice, then that choice should be a fair choice that is equivalent to any of its alternatives. If the players make a choice, then the game...

First, balance is a property of the game's rules. If you think otherwise, then you don't understand what balance is. Second, if you think the claim that 4E is more balanced than 3E is an "opinion," then you don't understand what balance is. Third, if you think balance is about calculating an...

The big issue is that this whole "balanced around X" thing is a farce. It's an illusion. If game balance is built on certain fragile assumptions, then that just means the game is actually imbalanced for every single way of playing that doesn't fit those assumptions. This is why many of Mr...

Then why don't you let the game be balanced for people who want that kind of balance, and gleefully houserule in your imbalance? Wait, you actually think it's okay to want to dictate how other people play their game even for a product you don't purchase yourself? Seriously? Anyways, a lack of...

If you really feel this way, then why are you here on the D&D Next forum? If you are so sure in your belief that you could make something better for your group than any designer can, then why are you getting involved in the market for a new game being made by game designers? If you really feel...

I'd go a step further and say that balance is never achieved by accident. Balancing a game is a process. A long, difficult process that even the best in the field can fail at. Ignoring it outright leads to things that simply don't come close to what I would call balance. Getting balance by...

Anything better than 3E's atrocious level of balance would be a good start. Editions prior to 4E, and 3E in particular, are some of the least-balanced games of all time. Acknowledging that problem and being willing to make significant change to the game's traditions to correct that balance is...