Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 6002301" data-attributes="member: 22779">So, essentially you're saying that 3e succeeded because nearly every 3e fan was so enamoured to ... what... the flavour... that they chose to rip apart the entire baseline of the system in order to play a game that you're claiming doesn't work out of the box.Really?I think the success of 3e has a lot more to do with the fact that 3e works, out of the box, that balanced systems are a thousand times easier to play than unbalanced ones, and that the average gamer is savvy enough to know that a game that works is better than one that needs to be entirely rewritten.As far as metagaming aspects of adventure design, I'm not completely out to see.&nbsp; There is absolutely ZERO non-metagaming aspect of adventure design.&nbsp; None.&nbsp; Zero.&nbsp; Zip.&nbsp; Nada.&nbsp; Every facet of adventure design, from mapping out structure (whether it be a physical structure or simply a conceptual structure) to the type and number of challenges (either combat, non-combat or both) to every other aspect of adventure design is wholly a meta-game process.The only way you could avoid that would be to somehow develop some sort of organic model and then advance the model in such a way that an adventure grew itself.&nbsp; Since that's impossible (or at least WAY too difficult to achieve with a pencil and paper), I'm going to stand by the fact that every single aspect of adventure design is purely meta-game.Of course it is.&nbsp; The DM chooses what, when, where and why every single element exists in an adventure.&nbsp; Why are there ten orcs in room 1b and not nine?&nbsp; Why do they have longswords instead of axes?&nbsp; Why do they have 2d6 gp each instead of 2d10?&nbsp; Why don't they have over powered magic items?&nbsp; On and on and on.&nbsp; Nothing a DM does during adventure design is not metagaming.&nbsp; The only difference between 3e and any other edition is that 3e gave us transparent baselines.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 6002301, member: 22779"] So, essentially you're saying that 3e succeeded because nearly every 3e fan was so enamoured to ... what... the flavour... that they chose to rip apart the entire baseline of the system in order to play a game that you're claiming doesn't work out of the box. Really? I think the success of 3e has a lot more to do with the fact that 3e works, out of the box, that balanced systems are a thousand times easier to play than unbalanced ones, and that the average gamer is savvy enough to know that a game that works is better than one that needs to be entirely rewritten. As far as metagaming aspects of adventure design, I'm not completely out to see. There is absolutely ZERO non-metagaming aspect of adventure design. None. Zero. Zip. Nada. Every facet of adventure design, from mapping out structure (whether it be a physical structure or simply a conceptual structure) to the type and number of challenges (either combat, non-combat or both) to every other aspect of adventure design is wholly a meta-game process. The only way you could avoid that would be to somehow develop some sort of organic model and then advance the model in such a way that an adventure grew itself. Since that's impossible (or at least WAY too difficult to achieve with a pencil and paper), I'm going to stand by the fact that every single aspect of adventure design is purely meta-game. Of course it is. The DM chooses what, when, where and why every single element exists in an adventure. Why are there ten orcs in room 1b and not nine? Why do they have longswords instead of axes? Why do they have 2d6 gp each instead of 2d10? Why don't they have over powered magic items? On and on and on. Nothing a DM does during adventure design is not metagaming. The only difference between 3e and any other edition is that 3e gave us transparent baselines. [/QUOTE]

Verification