Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Storm Raven" data-source="post: 4002513" data-attributes="member: 307">To be perfectly honest, this argument just doesn't hold up.First off, 2e wasn't balanced to begin with, at least not in the same sense that 3e is supposed to be balanced. Hence, if you were perfectly okay with the 2e way of doing things, losing the 3e version of balance should be of minimal concern.Second off, having no guidelines doesn't &quot;free&quot; you. It merely leaves you in the dark. The constraints of designer assumptions are still all around you, you just can't see them. As a result, you are likely to lurch from one unfounded belief to another, having to grope your way to figuring out what is made explicit in 3e, and thus figuring out how to modify the system to a version you desire.Is it easy to convince a player to vary from the 3e assumptions? Sometimes yes, and sometimes no. It usually depends on the player and the variance you want to make.But that's not the issue.The issue is this: is it easier to understand what the effects various alterations in your campaign power are going to have relative to the assumed version of the game used by the designers when they put things together? There really is no question but that the answer is that it is easier under the 3e version where they tell you up front what the assumptions they made were.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Storm Raven, post: 4002513, member: 307"] To be perfectly honest, this argument just doesn't hold up. First off, 2e wasn't balanced to begin with, at least not in the same sense that 3e is supposed to be balanced. Hence, if you were perfectly okay with the 2e way of doing things, losing the 3e version of balance should be of minimal concern. Second off, having no guidelines doesn't "free" you. It merely leaves you in the dark. The constraints of designer assumptions are still all around you, you just can't see them. As a result, you are likely to lurch from one unfounded belief to another, having to grope your way to figuring out what is made explicit in 3e, and thus figuring out how to modify the system to a version you desire. Is it easy to convince a player to vary from the 3e assumptions? Sometimes yes, and sometimes no. It usually depends on the player and the variance you want to make. But that's not the issue. The issue is this: is it easier to understand what the effects various alterations in your campaign power are going to have relative to the assumed version of the game used by the designers when they put things together? There really is no question but that the answer is that it is easier under the 3e version where they tell you up front what the assumptions they made were. [/QUOTE]

Verification