Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Imaro" data-source="post: 3443043" data-attributes="member: 48965">No I'm not saying making a character in 3.x is equivalent to a calculus exam. I'm saying I remember when a character really took five minutes.&nbsp; You want to say amking a character in 3.x is still as easy and quick as BD&amp;D, C&amp;C or even AD&amp;D ok, that's your experience I just don't see it, unless the player is making a character without knowing and understanding everything available to them.&nbsp; In other words your making the character for them or limiting the options available to them.Never disagreed that the universal &quot;roll high&quot; mechanic didn't simplify game play.&nbsp; That's why I use C&amp;C instead of AD&amp;D.&nbsp; My point was that if all your telling them to do is roll a die, when do they ever understand the why's and how's of the game.Disagree here, especially when there is no formula for what's being created.&nbsp; PrC's still aren't made in any unified way, so determining balance is the same as making up your own stuff, a total judgement call.&nbsp; No one's asking you to design a game from the bottom up, or even saying you have to add stuff...but once again I don't see how judging PrC's that are made arbitrarily by someone else's idea of balance is any harder than making your own.&nbsp; Less time consuming, maye...harder, still not convinced.I also remeber articles from Dragon magazine that advised and even listed why you should set aside a whole session for character creation when 3.x first came out, so I guess everyone has they're own &quot;observed facts&quot;.&nbsp; These are people with way more understanding and experience with the game system so I think I'll go with they're observed facts, as well as my own.&nbsp; Even at 15 min a PC that's an hour for four PC's.&nbsp; Sorry most people that are new to a game don't want to spend an hour plus getting ready to play, especially if they're new to it.No, but it is alot of investment for someone to expend for something they're not sure they will like.&nbsp; I like C&amp;C because there is less initial investment and then it allows(once a player has decided they do or don't like the game) complexity(feats, skills, multi-classing, AoO,etc.) to be added with a full grasp of their usage in incremental steps.&nbsp; I think It's better to get a player started in the hobby with a game that(IMHO) is quick to make characters for, doesn't bog down in play, is easy to grasp all the rules, etc.&nbsp; C&amp;C is my go to game for this.&nbsp; Once they like playing rpg's then I think a person is more willing to invest in a $90 core set and the reading that comes along with that, as well as taking the time to read over and understand feats, skill usage, combat rules, etc.&nbsp; YMMV.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Imaro, post: 3443043, member: 48965"] No I'm not saying making a character in 3.x is equivalent to a calculus exam. I'm saying I remember when a character really took five minutes. You want to say amking a character in 3.x is still as easy and quick as BD&D, C&C or even AD&D ok, that's your experience I just don't see it, unless the player is making a character without knowing and understanding everything available to them. In other words your making the character for them or limiting the options available to them. Never disagreed that the universal "roll high" mechanic didn't simplify game play. That's why I use C&C instead of AD&D. My point was that if all your telling them to do is roll a die, when do they ever understand the why's and how's of the game. Disagree here, especially when there is no formula for what's being created. PrC's still aren't made in any unified way, so determining balance is the same as making up your own stuff, a total judgement call. No one's asking you to design a game from the bottom up, or even saying you have to add stuff...but once again I don't see how judging PrC's that are made arbitrarily by someone else's idea of balance is any harder than making your own. Less time consuming, maye...harder, still not convinced. I also remeber articles from Dragon magazine that advised and even listed why you should set aside a whole session for character creation when 3.x first came out, so I guess everyone has they're own "observed facts". These are people with way more understanding and experience with the game system so I think I'll go with they're observed facts, as well as my own. Even at 15 min a PC that's an hour for four PC's. Sorry most people that are new to a game don't want to spend an hour plus getting ready to play, especially if they're new to it. No, but it is alot of investment for someone to expend for something they're not sure they will like. I like C&C because there is less initial investment and then it allows(once a player has decided they do or don't like the game) complexity(feats, skills, multi-classing, AoO,etc.) to be added with a full grasp of their usage in incremental steps. I think It's better to get a player started in the hobby with a game that(IMHO) is quick to make characters for, doesn't bog down in play, is easy to grasp all the rules, etc. C&C is my go to game for this. Once they like playing rpg's then I think a person is more willing to invest in a $90 core set and the reading that comes along with that, as well as taking the time to read over and understand feats, skill usage, combat rules, etc. YMMV. [/QUOTE]

Verification