NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="catastrophic" data-source="post: 5657883" data-attributes="member: 81381">That's assuming that a system works well to do the things it claims to do. People can argue that a system better services their play-style, but that is not a claim that should be immune to interrogation. For instance, there are games out there where some pcs are stronger and more magical than others- like the Buffy RPG, which has rules for powerful, supernatual types, as well as less formidable 'scoobie' types. In this system, a 'plot point' resource is used to give some parity and ways for the 'weaker' pcs to serve key roles in the plot and scenes, including combat scenes. On the other hand, the claim that 3.x wizards and fighters interact in a similar, well designed, deliberate ways, wether with the goal of partiy, or some other goal, is dubious at best. People make that argument all the time, but we're under no obligation to accept that claim at face value, especially when the logic tends to be so convoluted and I would say, cointrived. There's only so many anti-magic zones, low ceilings, and sleepless nights you can inflict on a party before it becomes clear that 3.x isn't designed a certain way- it's just not well designed. There's only so many scenarios we can lay out for how utterly worthless a fighter is psat about level 6, before it becomes clear that 3.x isn't servicing some low-medievil 'simulationist' play-style- it's just broken. You can dismiss my opinions as much as you like, but the trend poor behaviour in question is quite clear and apparent. Yes, there are scapegoats for it, like the bytopia outrage we discussed earlier, but they are, clearly scapegoats. Certinly, people defending 4e have been part of these arguments, but the character and persistance of the situation are clear. Nobody's suggesting they didn't make mistakes, but watever WOTC did or did not do wrong, pales in signifigance to the wrath that was caused, not because they made a bad game, or acted poorly, but because they changed something that people didn't want changed, and those people acted very poorly in response. You might argue that they should have been aware of that, should have avoided innovation and solid, ground-up design goals- but that's not a mindset anyone should be encouraging, least of all in such a small industry.</blockquote>

Verification