Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Belen" data-source="post: 2589852" data-attributes="member: 1405">Good post.&nbsp; However, I was never advocating a relationship where I created rules and hid them from the players.&nbsp; I was saying that the players do not have the right to demand that certain rules be added to the game.&nbsp; Certain rules are &quot;add-on&quot; to the system, such as PrCs or feats.&nbsp; There should be no assumption of &quot;yes&quot; where these are concerned.I disagree here.&nbsp; This dynamic has not changed.&nbsp; The idea that all new options are balanced is part of the problem.&nbsp; All new options in 3e are not balanced against one another.&nbsp; Some options are clearly superior than others.&nbsp; If anything, the veneer of balance means that a DM has to be more wary about supplments these days, especially considering how additions can alter the complexity of the rules.&nbsp; The tight rules set works against itself in that it's base is almost like a house of cards.2e had the bladesinger.&nbsp; 3e has the Hulking Hurler.&nbsp; And here we disagree.&nbsp; I think it is more difficult in 3e.&nbsp; In 2e, if a kit was horribly overbalanced, it was fairly easy to compensate.&nbsp; You could change core rules to fit the existance of the unbalanced kit.&nbsp; In 3e, an option that is unbalanced is far more difficult to deal with.&nbsp; The core rules of the game are so tighly woven that you cannot easily modify things to fit the circumstances.&nbsp; This place the DM in the position of saying no while the &quot;rules&quot; give the impression that things are &quot;balanced.&quot;In 3e, there is no tool that allows a DM to readily evaluate new options.&nbsp; It requires a lot of work to test out new classes, feats, etc.&nbsp; You cannot just assume that the new options will even fit a generic game.&nbsp; And there are so many rules that even WOTC designers cannot see where a new rules will interact with all the others.This may be different if 3e fostered strong DMs with the power to say no, but this is not the case.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Belen, post: 2589852, member: 1405"] Good post. However, I was never advocating a relationship where I created rules and hid them from the players. I was saying that the players do not have the right to demand that certain rules be added to the game. Certain rules are "add-on" to the system, such as PrCs or feats. There should be no assumption of "yes" where these are concerned. I disagree here. This dynamic has not changed. The idea that all new options are balanced is part of the problem. All new options in 3e are not balanced against one another. Some options are clearly superior than others. If anything, the veneer of balance means that a DM has to be more wary about supplments these days, especially considering how additions can alter the complexity of the rules. The tight rules set works against itself in that it's base is almost like a house of cards. 2e had the bladesinger. 3e has the Hulking Hurler. And here we disagree. I think it is more difficult in 3e. In 2e, if a kit was horribly overbalanced, it was fairly easy to compensate. You could change core rules to fit the existance of the unbalanced kit. In 3e, an option that is unbalanced is far more difficult to deal with. The core rules of the game are so tighly woven that you cannot easily modify things to fit the circumstances. This place the DM in the position of saying no while the "rules" give the impression that things are "balanced." In 3e, there is no tool that allows a DM to readily evaluate new options. It requires a lot of work to test out new classes, feats, etc. You cannot just assume that the new options will even fit a generic game. And there are so many rules that even WOTC designers cannot see where a new rules will interact with all the others. This may be different if 3e fostered strong DMs with the power to say no, but this is not the case. [/QUOTE]

Verification