Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6198580" data-attributes="member: 42582">I am with ImperatorK here. Toon makes it crystal clear, in the book, that you are playing a cartoon character. CoC likewise makes the goals and expectations of play pretty clear.Nothing in 3E suggests that the GM is going to need a whole slew of tricks to maintain the balance between mid-to-high level casters and fighters. Nor are players told anything about this. (Contrast Moldvay Basic or AD&D 1st ed, both of which expressly tell players that wizards start out weak but end up dominating play if they survive. And also note the many tricks that Gygax suggestsin his DMG for handling those powerful casters.)But the books don't tell me, as GM, what I'm expected to do with Rule 0. It's all left as an exercise for the reader. (Which is a reiteration of what [MENTION=16586]Campbell[/MENTION] said upthread about the lack of clarity for new players in 3E/PF.)It's no real surprise that 3E doesn't have this text: WotC wants to sell books, and doesn't particularly care whether or not those who buy them are buying a game that will suit them. There's an obvious contrast here with a game like Burning Wheel, part of the appeal of which to those who buy it being that Luke Crane is so upfront in his rules text and advice about what the game is for and how he means it to be played.Interestingly, 4e tried to be more clear about the playstyle expectations that will make it work and was condemned for being too narrow!</blockquote>

Verification