Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mercurius" data-source="post: 4717783" data-attributes="member: 59082">Thanks, good arguments and I can accept the lack of two-weapon fighting, although it seems rangers still get it, which goes against everything you said...sure, it is a special power rangers get but why not rogues? Fighters? Is Drizzt Do'Urden's influence really that powerful? <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />This is arguable, because the dagger guy could be out of reach from the pole arm guy by being too close--he wouldn't necessarily have to jump in and out of range but just stay close, and too close for the pole arm guy to attack effectively...you could argue that the dagger guy should be granted an OA every time the pole arm backed away to get a swing in.Yes and no--I think a balance is possible between game balance considerations and simulation; it really depends upon the individuals playing the game, what they require for the game to be fun. Some like it to have a sense of realism, some balance, some just want a good story, some don't care, some a combination of all of the above and more. But to make a statement as you did--that &quot;balance considerations are far more important than 'simulation' in a fantasy game&quot;--already is taking a particular position or bias, what GNS theory would call &quot;gamism&quot;; nothing wrong with that, but it isn't necessarily how a fantasy game should be played...there are other approaches; everyone has their preferential mix.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mercurius, post: 4717783, member: 59082"] Thanks, good arguments and I can accept the lack of two-weapon fighting, although it seems rangers still get it, which goes against everything you said...sure, it is a special power rangers get but why not rogues? Fighters? Is Drizzt Do'Urden's influence really that powerful? ;) This is arguable, because the dagger guy could be out of reach from the pole arm guy by being too close--he wouldn't necessarily have to jump in and out of range but just stay close, and too close for the pole arm guy to attack effectively...you could argue that the dagger guy should be granted an OA every time the pole arm backed away to get a swing in. Yes and no--I think a balance is possible between game balance considerations and simulation; it really depends upon the individuals playing the game, what they require for the game to be fun. Some like it to have a sense of realism, some balance, some just want a good story, some don't care, some a combination of all of the above and more. But to make a statement as you did--that "balance considerations are far more important than 'simulation' in a fantasy game"--already is taking a particular position or bias, what GNS theory would call "gamism"; nothing wrong with that, but it isn't necessarily how a fantasy game should be played...there are other approaches; everyone has their preferential mix. [/QUOTE]

Verification