Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Vyvyan Basterd" data-source="post: 5659742" data-attributes="member: 4892">I'm NOT one of "those people" that say the power gap automatically happens. And I don't think anyone in this thread has stated that it absolutely happens to everyone.Are you confusing "systemic" for "automatic?"And we're all happy your solution works for you. Your parameters for an enjoyable game are different than others.My "BS" is actual experience. To remove the ambiguity I'll state it simply again: If an encounter challenged the power gamers in my group, it over-challenged the non power gamers to the point where there characters could not contribute satisfactorally. If an encounter was an appropriate challenge for the non power gamers, it under-challenged the power gamers who were then able to end the encounter before the non power gamers' characters could not contribute satisfactorally. The power gamers would not enjoy the game if they were asked to tone down their characters. The non power gamers would not enjoy the game if the power gamers helped them build their character. Our main goal to playing the game is to get a chance to hang out as friends, therefore splitting the group to find all power gamers or all non power gamers is not a satisfactory conclusion. We tried to find ways to fix the problem that still allowed everyone to enjoy the game, but the problem was tied to a basic element of the system. I call this systemic, you are of course free to call it whatever you want. I know that this is not an automatic problem for all.Gee. Glad you're not trying to insult anyone with your claims of superiority. What you don't "grok" is the needs my group has from a game that someone is willing to run. I would have been more than happy to give up the DM chair (I'm currently playing 4E Dark Sun) and continued playing 3.5 if anyone else in the group would have stepped forward. They felt the effort was not worth it either. So we found a game we liked. Is the problem automatic? No. Is it a common problem that arose long before 4E was even announced? Yes, see the E6 thread and various others here on ENWorld for evidence.So you're entitled to your opinions and I'm allowed to have mine, but their BS? Isn't this YOU that is trumping MY experience because you never saw the problem? Pot, kettle.I'm not starting from absolutes, so your question is moot. I'm just relying upon personal experience, which apparently was "BS" and numerous threads dating back to the pre-4E threads, but those must have just been a bunch of BS too. If you took the time to actually read others' posts instead of assuming a 4venger is just blabbing BS, the maybe we could have a useful conversation.I'm was merely relaying what I thought you were saying. Your words probably seem clear to you as you type them, what with your superior intellect and all, but you are not very clear. I would actually be interested in how you avoid the power gap in your games. I still hold that I'm a well-experienced DM while at the same time I'm always open to learning new ways. It might not "bring me back" to 3.5 but you never know if I might need it at some point in the future for my current game.You sound just like the guy in my group that would normally choose the ranger because of his DPR. He "knows" that his builds are superior to my characters. My beastmaster ranger "sucked." My warlock "sucks." Yet I keep showing just how useful my characters are, funny that. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f60e.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":cool:" title="Cool    :cool:"  data-smilie="6"data-shortname=":cool:" /></blockquote>

Verification