Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="slobster" data-source="post: 6002868" data-attributes="member: 6693711">Yes, I agree, and also that is true. I think a system that used a 4E like math system to produce enemies, and then had a 3.5-like set of guidelines (for those who were interested) to link the numbers to the in-game fiction, would serve me nicely. In fact, that is essentially what I use.Now we are dangerously close to agreeing. I think that the 4E/3.5 hybrid I just posited gets us as close as possible to the ideal, though. You want your base system to provide useful rules and a solid bedrock for Gms to build up from, and I think the old 3.5 system is too goofy and too much work to serve very well in that regard.EDIT: I also think that 4E was very liberating in that regard. The advice in the 3.5 monster creation is along the lines of "Here are a bunch of equations, input starting conditions and record the results. If you don't like what comes out, here is how to change the starting conditions to maybe come up with better numbers, after a few attempts." Then of course there is the implicit understanding that GMs can always fudge the numbers to have them make sense, but as you observed players might then get uppity because the GM "cheated" (!?). 4E, on the other hand, says "Here are formula to produce a level appropriate challenge. Whenever the numbers don't make sense, change them."</blockquote>