Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Dannager" data-source="post: 5828747" data-attributes="member: 73683">Then don't. The errata and updates are free. Use the second method I suggested. Or don't bother, and make your character with whatever you've got at hand, and don't worry about it until someone brings it up.&nbsp;Again, you're not going to get anywhere with this. Yes, humans are tricky creatures. No, that doesn't mean that you get to ignore balance issues. You're trying to use the people-factor as an excuse to not have to deal with errata.&nbsp;&nbsp;And if that were all that mattered, we wouldn't need dozens of different tabletop RPGs, now, would we?You're arguing these sort of meaningless rhetorical cliches.&nbsp;&nbsp;On the contrary, the system I've outlined would allow a company to continue to survive without having to resort to the edition treadmill (if they so desired). A truly dynamic game would be the last edition ever published. I think we'll eventually see it.&nbsp;I meant that &quot;ANY RPG WORTH PLAYING CAN BE &quot;BROKEN&quot; BY ANYONE WHO TRIES HARD ENOUGH,&quot; shouldn't have been said. It doesn't say anything meaningful, and the only reason it was dug out of the metaphorical grave this community had buried it in was so that you would have another excuse for sidelining balance concerns.I want to be clear on this: You actually believe that rules updates and errata have no effect on game balance?&nbsp;&nbsp; HahahahaYou don't get to just redefine the word &quot;consumer.&quot; You're a hobbyist, sure, and you're also a consumer whenever you make use of a commodity or service.What you're doing is attempting to draw a made-up, arbitrary distinction between hobbyists and &quot;consumers&quot; by implying that consumers are sheep, and that you aren't a sheep like they are. Replace &quot;hobbyist&quot; with &quot;elitist&quot; and you have something that's probably much more accurate.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Dannager, post: 5828747, member: 73683"] Then don't. The errata and updates are free. Use the second method I suggested. Or don't bother, and make your character with whatever you've got at hand, and don't worry about it until someone brings it up. Again, you're not going to get anywhere with this. Yes, humans are tricky creatures. No, that doesn't mean that you get to ignore balance issues. You're trying to use the people-factor as an excuse to not have to deal with errata. And if that were all that mattered, we wouldn't need dozens of different tabletop RPGs, now, would we? You're arguing these sort of meaningless rhetorical cliches. On the contrary, the system I've outlined would allow a company to continue to survive without having to resort to the edition treadmill (if they so desired). A truly dynamic game would be the last edition ever published. I think we'll eventually see it. I meant that "ANY RPG WORTH PLAYING CAN BE "BROKEN" BY ANYONE WHO TRIES HARD ENOUGH," shouldn't have been said. It doesn't say anything meaningful, and the only reason it was dug out of the metaphorical grave this community had buried it in was so that you would have another excuse for sidelining balance concerns. I want to be clear on this: You actually believe that rules updates and errata have no effect on game balance? Hahahaha You don't get to just redefine the word "consumer." You're a hobbyist, sure, and you're also a consumer whenever you make use of a commodity or service. What you're doing is attempting to draw a made-up, arbitrary distinction between hobbyists and "consumers" by implying that consumers are sheep, and that you aren't a sheep like [I]they[/I] are. Replace "hobbyist" with "elitist" and you have something that's probably much more accurate. [/QUOTE]

Verification