Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 9056721" data-attributes="member: 6801228">And this is why no one has ever once complained about the monk being weak, because it provides a different fantasy and that means it has never once been called out as being weak, poorly designed, or having any problems, right? Wrong. Again, sure, the classes fulfill different fantasies. People like different fantasies. That doesn't mean the classes are doing a good job fulfilling those fantasies or that &quot;but I had fun&quot; somehow is a shield against that mechanical failure. And some people argue the Earth is flat. Just because people argue it doesn't mean they are correct. A lack of balance at high level play is a problem. Yes, as discussed before, 40 or more years ago people decided DnD was a game where high level casters are gods who cannot be challenged. And yes, there are a group of people who insist this must always be the case. And we will never agree that casters should be cut down to glorified commoner archers, instead of fighters being raised to the status of at least demi-gods. Because the most famous martials everyone thinks about from myth and culture history? They tended to be demi-gods. And again &quot;I had fun&quot; isn't a defense against bad design. There is a version of monopoly that was created to study psychology. It greatly and randomly favored one player over the other. It was done by Berkley I believe. One player was randomly chosen to have double the resources of the other. They would almost always win. They would almost always say they had fun, and that they won because of their skill. That doesn't mean it is a better designed version of monopoly, because it turns out, designing a massive resource gap is bad.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Chaosmancer, post: 9056721, member: 6801228"] And this is why no one has ever once complained about the monk being weak, because it provides a different fantasy and that means it has never once been called out as being weak, poorly designed, or having any problems, right? Wrong. Again, sure, the classes fulfill different fantasies. People like different fantasies. That doesn't mean the classes are doing a good job fulfilling those fantasies or that "but I had fun" somehow is a shield against that mechanical failure. And some people argue the Earth is flat. Just because people argue it doesn't mean they are correct. A lack of balance at high level play is a problem. Yes, as discussed before, 40 or more years ago people decided DnD was a game where high level casters are gods who cannot be challenged. And yes, there are a group of people who insist this must always be the case. And we will never agree that casters should be cut down to glorified commoner archers, instead of fighters being raised to the status of at least demi-gods. Because the most famous martials everyone thinks about from myth and culture history? They tended to be demi-gods. And again "I had fun" isn't a defense against bad design. There is a version of monopoly that was created to study psychology. It greatly and randomly favored one player over the other. It was done by Berkley I believe. One player was randomly chosen to have double the resources of the other. They would almost always win. They would almost always say they had fun, and that they won because of their skill. That doesn't mean it is a better designed version of monopoly, because it turns out, designing a massive resource gap is bad. [/QUOTE]

Verification