Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Scurvy_Platypus" data-source="post: 5522574" data-attributes="member: 43283">As a player and a GM both, I found the non-casters tended to dominate play. While I personally find amerigoV's response to be a variations on "Too bad your players are incompetent, suck it" there is a certain element of truth there: player competence _does_ have an effect. Poke around a little bit and everyone is happy to tell you how a fighter is for "beginner players" and that casters are for the more "advanced" players.So the system from the outset is designed (or preceived to be designed) so that non-casters fundamentally have less options; it's part of what makes it "suitable" for a "beginner".People that are playing casters tend to have a greater degree of system mastery. This combines with spells allowing casters to fulfill multiple roles, depending on the situation. These two things then interact with the nature of the game changing (according to Ryan Dancey) roughly every 5 levels.Me?As a player, I simply recognise that when I play 3.x, I'm going to suck because I don't feel like dealing with being a caster, and every GM freaks about something like the Tome of Battle and how "overpowered" it is.As a GM, I don't run "normal" or "baseline" 3.x. Fighters and non-casters are eliminated as PCs. Casters are limited to 5th level and below spells. So you get a mix of fighter-mage, theif-mage etc casters, and spells that can be powerful but not a massive headache.The answer is going to vary for every group. Some really dig the system mastery aspect, the character building game, etc. Others don't. When everyone in the group is on the same page, no problems. When they aren't, that's when you start having issues.In my particular case, I'm actively promoting _my_ fun by short-circuiting the elements I don't enjoy. I then make sure that before a pencil hits a character sheet, everyone is fully aware of what I've done and what I'm planning on doing; I don't even try to recruit anyone that likes what I don't like about 3.x.The fun could "happen naturally" if I and the group I'm playing/running a game for are the actual target for the default style of play of 3.x.Yeah, it varies. I'm always amazed at how there seems to be this feeling that WotC's game, with a limited number of playtesters, is going to be applicable for millions of people to embrace and play unaltered. I mean... really?!?!Personally, I don't take it personal that other folks don't enjoy my sort of fun. I like hairless cats, luchadors, and platypuses too; different folks dig different things. I only get annoyed when someone cops an attitude about the fact that I happen to like something different. Since I ain't forcin' 'em to play in my game, I don't really see where they get off tellin' me I'm wrong.  *shrug*</blockquote>

Verification