Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="TwoSix" data-source="post: 6194698" data-attributes="member: 205">Of course they have a say, they play the antagonists.&nbsp; But they don't unilaterally decide, no more than you can retroactively decide that kings can move 3 squares at a time in chess.You do see there's a whole spectrum between &quot;The DM decides the outcome&quot; and &quot;The DM has no say&quot;?&nbsp; And I would say this is on topic because it's the heart of the topic!&nbsp; Spellcasters and warriors are balanced if the DM uses a strong amount of adjudication, or as [MENTION=221]Wicht[/MENTION] said above, the &quot;DM decides the outcome&quot;.&nbsp; I agree that strong use of DM force is a very common playstyle, and was pretty much canonical in the '90s (both AD&amp;D 2e and Vampire/Mage et al had strong statements favoring this).&nbsp; But there's been a pretty strong design trend away from DM force and towards player empowerment over the last decade or so, and 4e embraced many of these new design elements.&nbsp; (The DMG2 most specifically embraces this style.)Now, what does this have to do with 3e?&nbsp; 2e is explicitly pro-DM force, and 4e is explicitly pro-player empowerment.&nbsp; Where does 3e lie between those two extremes?&nbsp; I would say the evidence is pretty strong, based on what play styles work well and what do not, as well as where it falls on the time scale of development (a game developed in the late 90s, published in 2000), that 3e responds best to a lot of DM force.&nbsp; Casters are balanced when the DM drives the scenario so they are balanced.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="TwoSix, post: 6194698, member: 205"] Of course they have a say, they play the antagonists. But they don't unilaterally decide, no more than you can retroactively decide that kings can move 3 squares at a time in chess. You do see there's a whole spectrum between "The DM decides the outcome" and "The DM has no say"? And I would say this is on topic because it's the heart of the topic! Spellcasters and warriors are balanced if the DM uses a strong amount of adjudication, or as [MENTION=221]Wicht[/MENTION] said above, the "DM decides the outcome". I agree that strong use of DM force is a very common playstyle, and was pretty much canonical in the '90s (both AD&D 2e and Vampire/Mage et al had strong statements favoring this). But there's been a pretty strong design trend away from DM force and towards player empowerment over the last decade or so, and 4e embraced many of these new design elements. (The DMG2 most specifically embraces this style.) Now, what does this have to do with 3e? 2e is explicitly pro-DM force, and 4e is explicitly pro-player empowerment. Where does 3e lie between those two extremes? I would say the evidence is pretty strong, based on what play styles work well and what do not, as well as where it falls on the time scale of development (a game developed in the late 90s, published in 2000), that 3e responds best to a lot of DM force. Casters are balanced when the DM drives the scenario so they are balanced. [/QUOTE]

Verification