NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ahnehnois" data-source="post: 6194188" data-attributes="member: 17106">I don't see where you'd get that one. I assume that anyone not advocating this particular position is doing fine. That's pretty much everyone in the world at large. I'm not saying that anyone who doesn't play a particular way is doing something wrong.I am saying that anyone who has an issue that the rest of us-who play with all sorts of styles-do not have is doing something unusual that causes that issue. If they're doing so unintentionally, that is kind of inept.Look at it this way. Someone has a car crash. They conclude that cars are fundamentally defective, and that the crashing is a natural result of driving the car. They demand that all motor vehicles be replaced with bumper cars.I look at the millions of people driving down the road happily, and conclude that cars do not always or even usually crash. I conclude that anyone who did crash likely did something abnormal. Are they all equally at fault? No. Some are rampaging drunks, some made a tiny error in judgement, some are innocent victims who were hit by someone else. Some of them are due to mechanical errors, but that doesn't invalidate the use of cars! Rather than turning the road into bumper car arena, I advocate incremental improvements in training and safety features derived from evidence.What you're suggesting goes way beyond that though. You're suggesting that if two players design characters that are different, the mechanics should either correct for or ignore those differences completely.There's nothing that stops two players in 3e from building virtually or actually identical characters. You're suggesting that to accommodate these indie/wargamers, players have to be forced to do that, and that building characters of different power levels should be essentially banned. You're also suggesting that the in-game nature of those characters is completely irrelevant; a dirt farmer PC has every right to equal "protagism" as a demigod PC, simply by virtue of being controlled by a player. It's really quite a radical idea.You're also suggesting that the role of the DM and the DM/player dynamic have to be essentially dissolved. These indie/wargamer people as you call them really have a lot of needs!In practice, these ideas are extremely destructive to other basic aspects of the game, including the simulatory aspect, the dynamism of meaningfully different characters, and the satisfaction of building an effective character in the absence of being defaulted into one.Not necessarily. However if their reasons for doing so are flawed, then there is.That may be. Though I suspect they could do a lot worse.</blockquote>

Verification