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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tovec" data-source="post: 5985309" data-attributes="member: 95493">Wow this thread has legs.I think what some of us object to is that we don't think DMs are or should be referees. We don't need the game to tell us how to run our game, we need the game to LET us run our game. When balance is enforced over our being able to run what we want then it becomes a problem. It is also a problem when balance, not fun or creativity or anything else, is the primary driving purpose.I can't speak for everyone but I know I don't want, look for or prefer broken options. That has never been my preference and I don't object to broken things being fixed. I object to the non-broken things being fixed, or rather being balanced and replaced with completely new options when the old ones worked fine. That does have to do with disagreeing on what is broken though.I've always tried to give all players (and characters) equal opportunity to shine. It is up to them if they do. I've never needed the rules to impose how to do this. If I put in a trapped door it is pretty obvious who it is meant for. But only 4e made it that all classes were equal (or about there) in combat which necessitated coming up with equal uses for them. I never designed a situation in 3e that would only be resolved by the rogue (as an example). But I gave the rogue options to avoid the fight using stealth, whereas the fighter would have probably fought their way through a situation. The wizard could have cast a spell to incapacitate the enemy too and the cleric may have blasted them with energy or brilliant light to blind them. But the rogue could always just sneak around, or ambush or attack and I don't feel like I get these same options in 4e - unless I'm doing some sort of skill challenge.I'm right there with you. But I also prefer having tools or pieces I can slot in or out that people will accept as part of the core mechanic of the game. A toolbox approach always works best in our games. For example, there is a rule in 3e that rolling 20 3 times means that creature dies (some versions it is a save, others it is more 20s, etc.). I've always hated that rule but nevertheless it is there. I've always hated it but it is a very simple aspect to remove. Now, trying to impose that kind of option from scratch in a handful of games is nearly impossible to do without having people call foul. It is worse when those new options don't slot into some perceived measure of balance that is supposed to be the fundamental aspect of the game.That's why I want a set of options that come with the game that I can introduce or remove as needed. Options that I can easily disallow or allow as needed so that my group will know what "houserules" we are using with little or no real explanation involved.Good but it isn't the same for all of us. Balance itself also has very little to do with this. If any system is well designed it can reduce prep time and allow you to use it for fun stuff like creating NPCs and plots. 4e isn't unique here. In that regard, I think it is "best" only by virtue of being newest. Balance has very little to do with prep time. Balance by itself has very little to do with fun either. You need a lot of other aspects to do that.</blockquote>

Verification