Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9849926" data-attributes="member: 6790260">I'm not sure it is possible to design for both. Because when you design for the former, you...genuinely stop caring about whether things might interact in genuinely undesirable--as in, harmful to the play experience--ways, because such interactions will only rarely occur, if ever. When you design for the latter, you do care about that, and you put a stop to it. I...don't really see how it's possible to have a middle ground there, where you both do and do not allow easily-abused rules to stay in the game.More importantly, I'm also talking about things like how 3e was--apparently--designed under the expectation that all players would play it exactly the same way they played 2e. That's why they juiced the Cleric and Druid to Kingdom come, because they expected that every Cleric would spend 3/4 of their slots on healing people, rather than using them for the extensive list of powerful spells available to Clerics. That's why Natural Spell was a 6th level feat, rather than a capstone as it is in 5e. Etc.There's a pretty major difference between designing a game under the presumption that everyone who plays it will only play one specific style, and designing it so that the incentives of play actually do line up with the intended playstyle rather than pointing diametrically opposite, as is so often the case in 3rd edition. 5e, being 90% 3e, has many of the same problems, just ever-so-gently toned down.</blockquote>

Verification