Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 9471771" data-attributes="member: 4937">Yes, they are.&nbsp; Rules may be modified for a large number of reasons, but they are still all playing &quot;D&amp;D&quot;.&nbsp; But modifying the rules is least of the issues.&nbsp; One group may be fighting three drunk kobolds as a typical 1st level encounter and another 8 orc berserkers with great axes.&nbsp; Neither group is doing it wrong.&nbsp; Likewise, one group may have a DM that is a great story teller but sucks at playing chess or any other tactical game, while another group may have a DM that is the most ruthless SOB DM for squeezing every ounce of potential difficulty from the playing pieces he his provided with and ruthlessly plays his monsters with the aim of &quot;winning&quot; or at least maximizing how hard the players find the fight.Unlike bowling, RPGs don't keep score and aren't objective tests of skill.&nbsp; Even played as tournament scenario it's very hard to have an objective winner because every table has a different referee.&nbsp; Treating an RPG as if it had objective score and that the score at one table could be compared to the score at another player, as if &quot;I have a 30th level character&quot; had any objective meaning is I think border line dysfunctional at least within the RPG community as a whole if you want to be a good &quot;citizen&quot; of multiple tables.From the perspective of your focus on challenge, the question isn't really that I think but rather, &quot;If you are going to have random character death, then how can you say you are supporting challenge?&quot;</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 9471771, member: 4937"] Yes, they are. Rules may be modified for a large number of reasons, but they are still all playing "D&D". But modifying the rules is least of the issues. One group may be fighting three drunk kobolds as a typical 1st level encounter and another 8 orc berserkers with great axes. Neither group is doing it wrong. Likewise, one group may have a DM that is a great story teller but sucks at playing chess or any other tactical game, while another group may have a DM that is the most ruthless SOB DM for squeezing every ounce of potential difficulty from the playing pieces he his provided with and ruthlessly plays his monsters with the aim of "winning" or at least maximizing how hard the players find the fight. Unlike bowling, RPGs don't keep score and aren't objective tests of skill. Even played as tournament scenario it's very hard to have an objective winner because every table has a different referee. Treating an RPG as if it had objective score and that the score at one table could be compared to the score at another player, as if "I have a 30th level character" had any objective meaning is I think border line dysfunctional at least within the RPG community as a whole if you want to be a good "citizen" of multiple tables. From the perspective of your focus on challenge, the question isn't really that I think but rather, "If you are going to have random character death, then how can you say you are supporting challenge?" [/QUOTE]

Verification