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: 6241255" data-attributes="member: 6681948">On the one hand, you keep reiterating that 3e can be played in the style you favour.  ON the other hand, you keep telling us that 3e is unbalanced between fighters and spellcasters for the style you play, while Ahnehnois and I do not find them unbalanced in our playstyle.  Your game element examples to make 3e play better within your playstyle are drawn from numerous other game systems, not 3e, which presumably better match your playstyle. I submit that, if the game is balanced and works well for some playstyles, and becomes unbalanced, requiring imports and rule changes from other systems to work, for other playstyles, this is an indication of the playstyle(s) that the system is intended for.  That may be due to conscious choice around which the game is designed (Hero System 6e includes a discussion of the Hero System philosophy in its introduction, and your excerpts from Burning Wheel indicate a similar conscious design choice, explicitly stated), or an unconscious choice by the designers who design the game to play “their way” without considering the possibility of other playstyles. So what if the Weather Sense roll is made first, after which the Druid casts his Control Weather spell?  There is prior determination in the system as to what the weather will be - the Weather Sense skill has set that weather.  Now, another character is using his resources to alter the fiction to be more to his liking.  If the spell can override the skill, are we not back to the same complaint that spellcasters possess a greater ability to impact the fiction? Again, that it is not a part of 3e D&D implies, to me, that the designers did not intend this to be the playstyle of 3e.  That it is more prevalent in 4e indicates a shift in design objectives.  A shift in design objectives would presumably alienate some players while attracting others.  One would expect such a shift to lead to debates over the relative merits of the systems.  The more radical shift, the more extreme those debates.  Anyone else thinking of the term “Edition Wars”? Gygax most definitely subscribed to the “living world” model.  Action happens whether the PC’s are there or not, and they must go where the action is – it will not come to them (unless, of course, their activities draw that action to them). Tomb of Horrors is not a standard.  It is unique.  As such, it is a poor example of the game in general, at that or any other time.  White Plume Mountain is a much better example of the flavour of modules at the time.  What would happen if the players try to ally with Keraptis?  That’s really left up to the GM – Keraptis is not described at all, so his goals, objectives and willingness to ally with the PC’s are left entirely to the GM to determine, or not, as he sees fit.  IIRC, the last encounter in the module is two Efreet seeking to bring the PC’s down to Keraptis, in an extension of the dungeon which is not described in even the most vague terms.   This was also common in early modules – there were other areas left for the GM to design himself, linked to the dungeon.  Keep on the Borderlands had the Cave of the Unknown, for example.  The Giants series would often see the GM design the wilderness one had to travel through to reach the various locations, the D series had plenty of room for other encounters, scenarios or entire civilizations.  Vault of the Drow, in particular, called out to the GM to flesh out the interplay between the noble families, which the PC’s could become involved in.  Q1 had, IIRC, four separate PLANES for the GM to set further adventures in. Again, the game seems balanced in our playstyle, and not in yours.  Does that not reasonably lead to the conclusion it is designed more with our playstyle in mind than an Indie playstyle? Again, ToH is a poor example.  Much more common were modules where the PC’s had numerous combat encounters, which relied on the ability of the fighters to act as the backbone of the party’s combat resources, so the spellcasters could husband their resources, using them when they would make the greatest difference, and tricks & traps where the thief’s skills became valuable.  Tomb of Horrors was one big trap, not a typical dungeon/adventure scenario, where combat was virtually nonexistent.</blockquote>

Verification