Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Humanophile" data-source="post: 1644841" data-attributes="member: 1049">Riiight.  Because every GM I know can take his sweet time poring over the quirks of the system, and can always call on more playtesting if he feels the need.  (Okay, I'll grant that deadlines can rush the game designer.  My core point still stands.  If this guy ends up pulling his mechanics out of his ass the week before the project's due, he has no right to call himself a game designer.)  I'm willing to accept that designers and playtesters mess up on occasion, especially if they errata it after the fact.  But it's the DM who has to deal with all that stuff in the moment, he should expect at least a good faith concerted effort.  Anything else, and he (at least I) wonder why I paid money for the book in the first place.True...  with a but.  A good group (emphasis on group, not GM, although a good GM is vital too) can make a group with ...specialty imbalances play well.  To use your later example, Superman can lift, Batman can pick locks.  So long as Superman is as good at lifting the things he's called on to lift as Batman is to pick the locks he's called on to pick.  This requires good reason, both in-game and out, for Superman not to just kick in every locked door, though, and in larger groups stands a very real risk of everyone sitting around bored waiting for their turn to be Just The Right Guy to come up.  (And say what you will.  Being bored is not fun for anybody.)  So you need a good GM to cycle the challenges well, and a good group to make sure one player doesn't lord over the others or use his area of specialization out of turn.  (Go to any more freeform system's boards, ask about their generic combat-type character, and hear all sorts of moaning about how the "munchkin" makes stealth and social types useless by fighting/threatening at every opportunity.)  And while there are good GM's with good groups, there are far more self-centered "I'm a good role-player!" circle-jerks out there, I've learned it's better not to tempt fate.Yes, that is true.  Ironically, in non D&D games, I tend to gravitate towards the "cleric" role of healer/buffer quite often.  (Ironic because D&D clerics have always sat wrong on me*.)  But while that rationalizes a cleric-like option; if you will, a "worse" option for someone who gets their jollies off strategy and pats on the back from their friends, it doesn't mean that the guy who wants to pattern himself after Conan should have to take the leftovers of the guy who wants to pattern himself after Gandalf**.  Gandalfand Conan are both Protagonists, most people who play D&D do so to be grandiose heroes, and it's disingenous to claim otherwise.  We go see Spiderman to see Spiderman, not pedestrian #3 who gets a minute of screen time.  Players feel very much the same way about their characters, no matter how much you and J_D may piously claim otherwise.  The players you invoke are a tiny minority of the gaming public, and the majority of games should be developed for the majority of players.  Simple, no?*wrong primarily because cleric-types should be nice, not a necessity, but this is hardly the place for that.**I'm well aware that Gandalf was primarily an advisor type who didn't throw a fireball throughout the whole story.  He's just the first name to come to mind.  Insert the pyromaniac of your choice here if you prefer another one.  Or just realize that a character based off a nigh-divine being will still trump anything that'll challenge a character based off a heroic mortal.</blockquote>

Verification