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="N'raac" data-source="post: 6194490" data-attributes="member: 6681948">As I said, finding perfect analogies is no easy task.  That said, football is a game where one team (call them the Pennsylvania Cougars, or PC's) face off against another team (call them the Outer Rockwood Chargers, or ORC's) compete, governed by a referee (Gerald Murphy, or GM).  The PC's work together in their goal of defeating the ORC's, and GM adjudicates their success or failure.  I realize that doesn't really sound much like a role playing game, but I think both games do rely on players and referees knowing the rules fairly well.will save comes up 1...can no longer resist.  Have you ever stopped and considered how apt your avatar is?Well, at least SOMEONE is rolling hot on those will saves - well done!I share this experience.  Does it mean those who have this experience are inept GM's?  Not necessarily.  However, I submit it also does not mean Wicht and I, and our groups, and everyone else who does not perceive huge balance disparities making the game "no fun"* are ignorant peasants who clearly have only the most inept play skills either.* If these disparities are so huge as to render the game unfun, why do those who possess the skilled, insightful reasoning to identify that continue to play it?Our Sorcerer specialized in Charm and Sleep.  Boy, is he effective against goblins.  He also spends a lot of encounters to date (we're third level, just made and haven't played 4th, in this game) lobbing Acid Bobs and using Aid Another actions my favorite being Mage Handing a skull to obscure a flying enemy's vision).My cleric avoids combat spells that would be useful against humanoids in favour of spells that better cover the Sorcerer's weaknesses, and I don't use general buffs when we see a dozen Goblins charging down the corridor.I've seen a lot more situations where the players note that the Rogue took down the Big Bad because the Fighter helped him flank, the Wizard took out the mooks so they could co-ordinate and the Cleric's buff spells resulted in hits that would have been misses, and crits that would not have been crits.  Maybe that's why you and I don't perceive the power disparity to the same extent - my players don't look at that new Wizard spell or Fighter feat and say "He got a shinier treat than I did <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f641.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":(" title="Frown    :("  data-smilie="3"data-shortname=":(" />.  They say "That's pretty cool - how can we use our other abilities to leverage it <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />"  In other words, they are working as a team to compete against the monsters, not as solo characters competing against each other.  Returning to baseball, that home run is flashy and impressive, but sometimes it's way more effective to bunt so the guy on third can get home.To phrase this another way, while I don't disagree we should address why other tables are perceiving significant power disparity issues when we are not, I think it is also incumbent on those experiencing such issues to objectively consider how those tables not experiencing the same issues are operating differently, and whether their concerns could be mitigated using similar techniques.  Maybe there are some rules being ignored or glossed over.  Funny how no one viewing wizards as overpowered uses the encumbrance rules - on the one hand, I don't think that alone is the issue,  but on the other hand, is that just a coincidence?  Perhaps it indicates a game style that pays less attention to details - and there are a lot of little details in the spell descriptions, aren't there?The vast majority of people are extremely surprised to learn that declining to purchase the property you just landed on does not pass the dice to the next player to roll.  The actual rule changes the dynamic immensely.  The fact that the vast majority play that way does not demonstrate that the actual rules are being followed, nor that the game designer is to blame for the fact that this rule change can extend the game considerably.Or that, perhaps, this is not the game for you.  If you don't like long monopoly games, and you can't live with the specific rules that result in those long games, maybe you should consider a different game.Why are those whose internet postings agree with you considered proof, and those that disagree with you discounted entirely.  There are lots of facts on the internet.  There's also tons of opinion.  Tell me which political party* should govern based on a full survey of the consensus which can be so clearly found on the Internet.  You will find about as much consensus as to which RPG, or even which edition of an RPG** is better balanced, or even balanced at all.  The fact that people voice their opinions does not turn those opinions into fact (in my opinion!)*DISCLAIMER I: This is not intended to suggest a discussion of politics.**DISCLAIMER II: This is not intended to suggest a discussion of relative merits of games or editions of games.I see... so what does the decision to cease production of 4e imply that WoTC believes?  Again, I really don't want to turn this in any way to an edition war, however the fact that 4th Ed did not result in broad accolades from all sectors of the gaming community, and the withering and death of its RPG competitors, suggests to me that 4ed was no more the Holy Grail of Gaming, and all things to all gamers, than any other game, or game edition, is, was or ever will be.With the possible exception of "let's pretend", as all RPGs are  merely attempts to recapture that childish sense of wonder with codified rules so we can consider ourselves "more mature".I don't see thousands of people posting here.  I do see several posting on each side of the argument.  That leads me to believe that a consensus has not been reached.  To suggest there is actually some objective fact to be determined is, to me, on the border of ridiculousness (and don't ask which side of that border).By the same token, what makes you so sure the problem lies on our part or that there is a problem.  A lot of people see no problems.  Are they all imagining things or doing something wrong? Or is it possible the problem is not inherent in the rules themselves?The fact that very few changes have changed nothing for people happy with the existing game in the course of making changes favoured by other people.  Since we're using the Internet to back up our claims, may I suggest a search of the phrase "edition wars" to locate the changes that did not fix issues for some while changing nothing for those who were happy with the status quo?  Now, please provide me the search term that will lead me to discussions of edition changes in any game that did, in fact, fix things for some and not change anything in a manner others believed to be a change for the worse.How about one more analogy.  Some young people play an RPG.  One of them is deeply and profoundly disturbed by in-game events.  He goes home, writes a note on his sadness with the game, then hangs himself by his bedsheet.  Concerned groups conclude that RPG's are fundamentally defective***, and that depression and suicide are natural results of playing an RPG***. They demand that all RPG's be banned.  Note that the assertion that society would collapse without motor vehicles probably holds more weight than any suggestion removal of RPG's would cause the fall of western civilization...*** And they post it on the Internet - so it must be true!I think that the problem wasn't the RPG, and that many people play RPG's and are, and remain, well-adjusted, productive, mentally healthy people #, and that seeking to ban RPG's ignores the actual problem.#Internet evidence to the contrary, in my view, is an anomalyManbearcat has posted an extremely well written discussion of complex conflict resolution, and I don't disagree with it.  I do, however, believe that it too relies on skilled players and GM's.  Such a game can also dissolve into "I use my Awesome Wizardry to eliminate the threat of the Dragon - how many successes do I need?"  rollrollroll  I submit this reflects inept play, and not a flaw in the rule system (or game style) itself, but also that it does happen in practice.</blockquote>

Verification