Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="JustinA" data-source="post: 3720013" data-attributes="member: 51618">I'd like a perpetual motion machine, too. And a unicorn.I make it a point not to pay for perpetual motion machines. But, sure. If you can produce a system which:(a) Keeps utilitarian magic items as a source of power (in a manner true to the traditions of D&amp;D);(b) Allows those magic items to be bought; and(c) Maintains game balance without taking into account what the PCs are capable (or are not capable) of buying.I'll pay you $50 for non-exclusive rights to it, do the editing and proofreading myself, publish it, and give you a 75% royalty on revenue.Can you expand on this thought? Because right now it looks like you're arguing that a guy who has one nuclear weapon doesn't gain any more power if you give him a second nuke. And I think you might mean something else, but I&quot;m not quite sure I can see what it is.I can understand the desire to have more of a character's power dependent on their own capabilities instead of their equipment. (Is that what you mean?) But that doesn't &quot;decouple the wealth mechanic&quot; or make the wealth requirements &quot;fungible&quot;. One solution would involve simply changing the expected levels of wealth. Another solution would be a World of Warcraft-style level cap on items/abilities -- but even that, given the wide variety of abilities available in D&amp;D, doesn't prevent a shift in game balance as a result of shifting wealth levels.Suffice it to say that, I consider personal insults like &quot;you are incapable of imagining something&quot; to be rude. You may consider that behavior to be &quot;perfectly polite&quot;, but I don't.So let's agree to disagree on this point and focus on the more substantive portions of the discussion.Justin Alexander<a href="http://www.thealexandrian.net" target="_blank">http://www.thealexandrian.net</a></blockquote>

[QUOTE="JustinA, post: 3720013, member: 51618"] I'd like a perpetual motion machine, too. And a unicorn. I make it a point not to pay for perpetual motion machines. But, sure. If you can produce a system which: (a) Keeps utilitarian magic items as a source of power (in a manner true to the traditions of D&D); (b) Allows those magic items to be bought; and (c) Maintains game balance without taking into account what the PCs are capable (or are not capable) of buying. I'll pay you $50 for non-exclusive rights to it, do the editing and proofreading myself, publish it, and give you a 75% royalty on revenue. Can you expand on this thought? Because right now it looks like you're arguing that a guy who has one nuclear weapon doesn't gain any more power if you give him a second nuke. And I think you might mean something else, but I"m not quite sure I can see what it is. I can understand the desire to have more of a character's power dependent on their own capabilities instead of their equipment. (Is that what you mean?) But that doesn't "decouple the wealth mechanic" or make the wealth requirements "fungible". One solution would involve simply changing the expected levels of wealth. Another solution would be a World of Warcraft-style level cap on items/abilities -- but even that, given the wide variety of abilities available in D&D, doesn't prevent a shift in game balance as a result of shifting wealth levels. Suffice it to say that, I consider personal insults like "you are incapable of imagining something" to be rude. You may consider that behavior to be "perfectly polite", but I don't. So let's agree to disagree on this point and focus on the more substantive portions of the discussion. Justin Alexander [url]http://www.thealexandrian.net[/url] [/QUOTE]

Verification