Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Gold Roger" data-source="post: 3087633" data-attributes="member: 33904">I'm split.One the one head I like the idea that most abilities shouldn't be as restricted anymore. I like the idea to remove the absolute need for rest. I like the idea that every class can do some special stuff.But on the other hand I think this idea could be taken to far. Some people like recource management. Some effects shouldn't be just chucked around at will. Making &quot;everyone can do cool stuff all the time&quot; is, in a way, (Gosh, that is going to sound terribly eliteist, but bear with me for a moment) dumbing down the game.You see all of this is what I call &quot;simple fun&quot;. Don't understand me wrong. I love movies you don't have to think about while watching, I love stupid entertainment, I at times love the hack'n'slash encounter. But I also love the stuff I have to think about before it entertains me. The &quot;complex fun&quot;. This might be a complex engaging movie. An unorthodox piece of music. A really challenging computer game, that frustrates me before I finally beat it. This could also be playing a vancian spellcaster or fighting/DMing a frustrating monster in D&amp;D like a guy with invisibility at will and hit and run or a rustmonster.Right now, D&amp;D has both of this, often at the same time. I agree the &quot;simple fun&quot; part can be wastly improved and smoothed out. But it seems many designers have become so enarmored with &quot;simple fun&quot; that they somehow think that &quot;complex fun&quot; isn't good, simply because it's harder to make worthwhile. Yes, a bad DM can ruin the game with a rust monster. But other DM's can greatly enhance the game using rust monsters.By all means should the scope of &quot;simple fun&quot; be expanded, but don't remove the possibilty for &quot;complx fun&quot; either.Another concern I have is the person that wants, in a mechanical sense at least, even simpler fun. You know those really casual folks, who usually have an barbarian or somesuch, simply attack every round, can't be bothered to remember any special ability behind barbarian rage! and have great fun with that?Or the really engaged story player, that doesn't like to load himself with rules options?I've had countless of those players. Give them characters that have to make a choice every round and you've got them out of the hobby real fast. And I like my variety in D&amp;D. As well as gaming tables with more than two or three hardcore D&amp;D players at them.So I'd prefer a hybrid system, where most spellcasters have invocations/at-will-magic and vancian spells and most noncasters have the option (via feats) between &quot;Thog Smash&quot; and swashbuckling maneuvering Flashy McJumpalot.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Gold Roger, post: 3087633, member: 33904"] I'm split. One the one head I like the idea that most abilities shouldn't be as restricted anymore. I like the idea to remove the absolute need for rest. I like the idea that every class can do some special stuff. But on the other hand I think this idea could be taken to far. Some people like recource management. Some effects shouldn't be just chucked around at will. Making "everyone can do cool stuff all the time" is, in a way, [I](Gosh, that is going to sound terribly eliteist, but bear with me for a moment)[/I] dumbing down the game. You see all of this is what I call "simple fun". Don't understand me wrong. I love movies you don't have to think about while watching, I love stupid entertainment, I at times love the hack'n'slash encounter. But I also love the stuff I have to think about before it entertains me. The "complex fun". This might be a complex engaging movie. An unorthodox piece of music. A really challenging computer game, that frustrates me before I finally beat it. This could also be playing a vancian spellcaster or fighting/DMing a frustrating monster in D&D like a guy with invisibility at will and hit and run or a rustmonster. Right now, D&D has both of this, often at the same time. I agree the "simple fun" part can be wastly improved and smoothed out. But it seems many designers have become so enarmored with "simple fun" that they somehow think that "complex fun" isn't good, simply because it's harder to make worthwhile. Yes, a bad DM can ruin the game with a rust monster. But other DM's can greatly enhance the game using rust monsters. By all means should the scope of "simple fun" be expanded, but don't remove the possibilty for "complx fun" either. Another concern I have is the person that wants, in a mechanical sense at least, even simpler fun. You know those really casual folks, who usually have an barbarian or somesuch, simply attack every round, can't be bothered to remember any special ability behind [COLOR=Red][B]barbarian rage![/B][/COLOR] and have great fun with that? Or the really engaged story player, that doesn't like to load himself with rules options? I've had countless of those players. Give them characters that have to make a choice every round and you've got them out of the hobby real fast. And I like my variety in D&D. As well as gaming tables with more than two or three hardcore D&D players at them. So I'd prefer a hybrid system, where most spellcasters have invocations/at-will-magic and vancian spells and most noncasters have the option (via feats) between "Thog Smash" and swashbuckling maneuvering Flashy McJumpalot. [/QUOTE]

Verification