Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 6193129" data-attributes="member: 6696971">Yup, precisely.&nbsp; The Mearls et al podcasts (where Mearls is GMing) is an exhibition of storyteller approach; replete with the illusion of consequential task resolution (Roll Charisma &lt;versus arbitrary or non-explicated DC&gt;) to access the &quot;plot dump&quot;.&nbsp; Which, as always, is fine so long as everyone is on board with the GMing techniques involved and the game it creates by extension.As a personal anecdote, I didn't run 3.x as a storyteller system.&nbsp; It seemed meant to be the crunchiest, D&amp;D process simulator to date...so I ran it as such.&nbsp; I think running it in this fashion, vs running it with a heaping of GM force (charting martial characters on an upward trajectory with &quot;Rulings Not Rules&quot; handling, while doing the inverse with spellcasters), is probably at the heart of this issue.&nbsp; The 3.x GMs who ran it purely as &quot;D&amp;D process simulator&quot; vs the 3.x GMs who ran it in the vein of AD&amp;D 2e &quot;Storyteller/Rulings Not Rules&quot; almost assuredly maps the divergence in the Linear Fighters/Quadratic Wizards debate.&nbsp; Either that or certain GMs had (i) spellcasters as &quot;nukers&quot; rather than Batman/Codzilla or (ii) they had exclusively martial characters in their campaigns and they didn't &quot;bring the heat&quot; with their pushback when deploying high level NPC spellcasters as antagonists.&nbsp; I've seen a few anecdotes on &quot;fair rulings&quot; for Martial PCs vs enemy spellcasters that if ruled in the same scenario, only inverted, would have sown extraordinary discord/ire at my table; such as the leveraging of encumbrance rules and Monk speed to get trapped players out of a debilitating control effect of slow + hefty damage by jumping on the Monk's shoulders/head/whathaveyou.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Manbearcat, post: 6193129, member: 6696971"] Yup, precisely. The Mearls et al podcasts (where Mearls is GMing) is an exhibition of storyteller approach; replete with the illusion of consequential task resolution (Roll Charisma <versus arbitrary or non-explicated DC>) to access the "plot dump". Which, as always, is fine so long as everyone is on board with the GMing techniques involved and the game it creates by extension. As a personal anecdote, I didn't run 3.x as a storyteller system. It seemed meant to be the crunchiest, D&D process simulator to date...so I ran it as such. I think running it in this fashion, vs running it with a heaping of GM force (charting martial characters on an upward trajectory with "Rulings Not Rules" handling, while doing the inverse with spellcasters), is probably at the heart of this issue. The 3.x GMs who ran it purely as "D&D process simulator" vs the 3.x GMs who ran it in the vein of AD&D 2e "Storyteller/Rulings Not Rules" almost assuredly maps the divergence in the Linear Fighters/Quadratic Wizards debate. Either that or certain GMs had (i) spellcasters as "nukers" rather than Batman/Codzilla or (ii) they had exclusively martial characters in their campaigns and they didn't "bring the heat" with their pushback when deploying high level NPC spellcasters as antagonists. I've seen a few anecdotes on "fair rulings" for Martial PCs vs enemy spellcasters that if ruled in the same scenario, only inverted, would have sown extraordinary discord/ire at my table; such as the leveraging of encumbrance rules and Monk speed to get trapped players out of a debilitating control effect of slow + hefty damage by jumping on the Monk's shoulders/head/whathaveyou. [/QUOTE]

Verification