Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9062625" data-attributes="member: 6790260">Yes. I don't see those things as remotely contradictory. People base their choices of play heavily on theme, regardless of mechanical function. Mechanical function is not irrelevant--if it is truly horrendous, it can drive people away--but it has to be pretty bad. That does not, at all, mean that it isn't punitive. &quot;All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.&quot;No, it absolutely is a reason. Because it would be popular no matter what form it takes, unless it were so horribly, egregiously bad that no one could justify playing it. It being popular is in fact an extremely GOOD reason to fix it, so that it actually meets the things the people who play it expect of it.For God's sake, the 3e Fighter was in the top 3 favorite classes of that edition. And it's incredibly bad! Basically everyone agrees about that--and when I say &quot;basically everyone,&quot; I include the designers of 3e, 4e, 5e, and Pathfinder. They all agree that there were serious flaws that needed to be fixed, and which could not be fixed with simply papering over the issues. Do you really think that, simply because the 3e Fighter was popular, it should have been preserved exactly as-is?But it's not working. It's just that people are willing to overlook the problems. That's literally what I said.You don't have something &quot;working&quot; that gets so much frustration, sustained, over a long period of time. That's literally the definition of it not working. People are just willing to put up with the issues--or paper over them.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 9062625, member: 6790260"] Yes. I don't see those things as remotely contradictory. People base their choices of play heavily on theme, regardless of mechanical function. Mechanical function is not irrelevant--if it is truly [I]horrendous[/I], it can drive people away--but it has to be pretty bad. That does not, at all, mean that it isn't punitive. "All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed." No, it absolutely is a reason. Because it would be popular no matter what form it takes, unless it were so horribly, egregiously bad that no one could justify playing it. It being popular is in fact an extremely GOOD reason to fix it, so that it actually meets the things the people who play it expect of it. For God's sake, the [I]3e[/I] Fighter was in the top 3 favorite classes of that edition. And it's incredibly bad! Basically everyone agrees about that--and when I say "basically everyone," I include the designers of 3e, 4e, 5e, [I]and Pathfinder[/I]. They all agree that there were serious flaws that needed to be fixed, and which could not be fixed with simply papering over the issues. Do you really think that, simply because the 3e Fighter was popular, it should have been preserved exactly as-is? But it's not working. It's just that people are willing to overlook the problems. That's literally what I said. You don't have something "working" that gets [I]so much frustration[/I], sustained, over a long period of time. That's literally the definition of it [I]not[/I] working. People are just willing to put up with the issues--or paper over them. [/QUOTE]

Verification