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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="MrMyth" data-source="post: 5523793" data-attributes="member: 61155">I said, "Hey, I've never really tried out the alignment domains, that seems like an interesting option for a high level cleric!"  I didn't say, "Hey, I bet this spell will completely destroy an encounter, and I want to be the 'winner' of this game."  Again, though, this level of system mastery just doesn't seem a reasonable expectation. Wanting a system to not have these 'trap' options - either ones too strong or too weak - seems an entirely legitimate point of view to me. Yes, you have pointed out that no system will be perfect - but that isn't reason to not even try and present a balanced system.  And how do I - as a player or DM - define the line between 'effective' and 'overwhelming'? Shouldn't I have some guidance in the system to do it for me? Especially because this isn't simply one or two spells that can be problematic. There are quite a few - and more with every supplement released for the system.  It would seem a reasonable expectation to be able to simply play the game and enjoy the options it presents. Asking for a level beyond that, in which the player and DM need to self-edit to ensure that they choose effective options, but not too effective options... I mean, yes, it is a solution. But not, to my mind, a reasonable one.   I think that this conversation has covered a number of useful topics, and I've seen insightful posts from several posters I often disagree with, such as Raven Crowking and BryonD. I'd really rather not see the thread locked, and towards that end, I would appreciate it if you might refrain from comments along these lines, which seem needlessly antagonistic. (Including, perhaps, the depiction of those you are arguing with as 'douchebags'.) My expectation is that I would like a system which allows a group to play the game as it is written to be played, and expect that to be a fun experience. I think it would be nice if it was simply a trivial matter to find and excise all elements that detract from the experience, but that doing so can, in fact, be quite a bit of work.   Again, it is the lack of any room in-between that I don't quite get. How many sessions before I realize that my effective spell (Evard's Black Tentacles) is frustrating the fighters who get to watch enemies die helplessly before they reach us. I mean, shouldn't they be happy they aren't going to take any damage? Or what is the easy option when I realize this sort of thing? Try out some other spells and see if they are less effective, but still effective enough for me to feel like I am contributing? And how many sessions will these issues come up before I find a perfect balance? What about when it happens in a one-shot? Sure, maybe the next time the DM will be prepared. But that doesn't salvage that session, and the fault wasn't with players and DMs who assumed that the options the system was presenting to them were acceptable ones.   Because, often, they might like the system, but object to specific aspects? And discussion and debate over those elements might offer a chance to see improvement in the future and/or find solutions to the overall problem (as they perceive it)? Basically, some folks have come forward and said, "Hey, we see these flaws in the system, and here are our concerns about them." Others have offered reasons why those flaws can be benefits for them, or discussion on ways to address those flaws or campaign styles in which they may be less of an issue.  But your statements above come across more as saying, "Here is what you need to do to not have these flaws. And if you can't or won't do that, it is because you either aren't a good enough gamer or are actively a jerk."  And... yeah, I think people are going to feel that such a statement is controversial.</blockquote>

Verification