Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Storm Raven" data-source="post: 4004967" data-attributes="member: 307">No, it doesn't. Not any more than 2e needed to be "balanced". Because if you were happy about having the rules work in an unbalanced way in 2e, then complaining that changing 3e affects its balance is quite simply being dishonest.Its a good thing that the 3e rules don't say any of those things either. If you are going to argue about the 3e rules, you might want to stick to those things the rules actually say. Actually reading them would seem to be a good place for you to start.And? What you have described is not a problem with the rules. What you have described is a problem with you and your players. The fact that you were really familiar with 2e is not a failing of the rules of 3e. The fact that your players preferred a different kind of game from the one you wanted to run is not a failing of 3e. Did you try to tell them up front what kind of game you wanted to run? I'm guessing that the answer is no, and that you just assumed they would be okay with whatever you pulled out of your hat.Your incoherent post about published adventures? You mean the one where you say "you can lurch about and stumble into the answer after a while"? That's nonsensical at best. Far better to simply tell you what they assumed when they wrote the adventure.No, it isn't.The system "makes" you run games a certain way? That's ludicrous on its face unless you are too weak-willed to do anything other than what a book tells you to.3e is less combat oriented than 2e in its rules - because it actually has functional rules systems for things other than combat. 2e really didn't (no, I don't consider the poorly put together NWP system to be worth considering).3e never says "these are the right assumptions" - it says "these are the assumptions we used". If you use different assumptions, you know that you need to account for it, if you want to mainitain the same sort of balance they came to. But if you are used to 2e where there was no balance, why do you care? Complaining that changing things affects 3e's balance while at the same time extolling the virtues of 2e is engaing in rank intellectual dishonesty.It isn't disputable, really. The people who say it is are either not paying attention or are delaing in received wisdom without checking the facts for themselves. When the system is transparent, it is easier to make changes and be able to anticipate the effects those changes will have. You may not like those effects, but that doesn't mean you can't anticipate them. I find it amusing the number of people who say "you can't predict the effects of changes! If you change X, it means that Y, Z, and Q are all affected!". What have they done if not predict the effects of a change? No, the people who say that "it is disputable" are engaging in logical inconsistency.And it is simple to balance the system back if you don't like the effects - just change the rule back.</blockquote>

Verification