Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="TwinBahamut" data-source="post: 5772092" data-attributes="member: 32536">I suppose you need to find some common ground outside of the two opposing viewpoints. Choosing between one of the other won't work, and there really is no direct middle ground. Thus, the only option is to either provide a framework that includes both to some degree or another, or to propose a third alternative that can attract people from both sides that works by virtue of its own excellence.In the case of NPCs working by the same rules or not...The key factors I understand of that debate are as follows:Some things different people want:1) Rules that are quick and easy to use, so that DMing is not a time-consuming chore.2) A wide variety of options.3) Interesting challenges for the players to face.4) NPCs with the depth and skills needed to function outside of combat situations.5) A sense that monsters are built upon intelligible rules that are shared with PCs.4E rules Are good at 1, 2, and 3, are poor at 4, and outright reject 5.3E rules are good at 4 in many cases, are not quite as good at 2 and 3, embrace 5, and are terrible at 1.Generally, any ruleset should try to grab as many of those as possible, even accepting that you can't please everyone. For example, a system that is similar to 4E, but vastly improves its ability to please people who want #4 many not please fans of #5, but it certainly would help bring in more people.</blockquote>