Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 6030573" data-attributes="member: 6696971">I can't tell you why there shouldn't be an optional opt-out.&nbsp; I don't support that position.What I think would be best and &quot;most safe&quot; (for entry-level gamers and the majority of advanced, veteran groups) is a 3/3/3 default with very clear, explicit information/advice (with as much brevity as possible...keywords would assist this but unfortunately people seem to find their presence too &quot;gamey&quot;) on:A)&nbsp; Exactly how shifting that default setup around will affect:1 - Gameplay and its accompanying table dynamics generally2 - Expectant output of the various classes specifically with respect to &quot;in-pillar challenges&quot;3 - Implications on niche infringementB)&nbsp; How each optional feat/power/feature (what have you) will work on its own, how they will synergize with other abilities, and how they will affect gameplay generally.I am all for tons of options but I think the best way forward is explicit, transparent advice on intended roles of classes/feats/synergies/abilities and the potential implications for deviation from the &quot;default settings&quot; and the inclusion or exclusion of various game-altering elements (I suspect you've seen enough of my posts at this point that you know which elements I'm referring to) on both the &quot;feel&quot; of the game (genre and playstyle) and the mechanical resolution of conflicts.&nbsp; I think some folks seem to think that if their playstyle isn't &quot;core&quot; or &quot;default&quot; and then there is corresponding advice/commentary from the developers on deviating from the &quot;default&quot; then inevitably that advice/commentary will stigmatize their playstyle as &quot;toxic&quot; or &quot;hazardous&quot; with some kind of D&amp;D version of the Scarlett Letter.&nbsp; Perhaps it has something to do with the editorializing in the initial 4e texts (&quot;Don't bother with talking to guards or shopkeepers/pedlars&quot; and &quot;Get to the FUN!&quot;).&nbsp; I honestly don't know.&nbsp; I have played every edition and I'm not sure if I've ever played any of them &quot;orthodox&quot; or &quot;default.&quot;&nbsp; Nonetheless, I know the value of understanding the &quot;why fors&quot; and the &quot;method to the madness&quot; of the default setting.&nbsp; As such, I think full disclosure on these things and then corresponding advice on the implications of deviation from default and advice on (i) &quot;how to deviate from default to get what you're looking for&quot; is sound engineering of a good TTRPG product.An example of good advice regarding (i) for the next edition is how to handle what you're looking for specifically.&nbsp; Advice of the variety in my earlier post about how to create the kind of character you may have been looking for (the cowardly or combat-incompetent sage) in 4e.&nbsp; Advice about how to decouple your combat actions from your PC so that your action economy is still represented in the encounter but it is just not represented in the fiction as your PC carrying it out.&nbsp; That way;- you get what you want (an incompetent or cowardly combatant).- you still get to express the equivalent action economy of a PC (perhaps your action economy represents the intervention of fate, the odd and unspoken synergy of a veteran unit, divine favor, or manifest destiny...so long as it is something outside of your PCs locus of control) and be involved and have tactical fun. - and the GM will still have the luxury of predictable results from the group relative to the expected output of the opposition of the encounter he composed.The other option is for advice specifically on how to balance encounters and prepare for &quot;below default # of PCs&quot; groups.&nbsp; I mean, I played 4e with only 3 people (several times with just 2) so I had to&nbsp; work on expressing a normal group's (4 or 5 characters) action economy with numbers short of a&nbsp; full group.&nbsp; That is &quot;unorthodox&quot; and &quot;outside of default&quot;.&nbsp; I had to explore this myself and create a ruleset for&nbsp; this.&nbsp; I would have loved it if 4e would have assisted me from the&nbsp; beginning and given me a quality controlled ruleset for this that I didn't have to&nbsp; contrive on my own.Anyhoo, That is me taking the long way to:&nbsp; &quot;I don't disagree with you but &lt;this stuff&gt;&quot;</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Manbearcat, post: 6030573, member: 6696971"] I can't tell you why there shouldn't be an optional opt-out. I don't support that position. What I think would be best and "most safe" (for entry-level gamers and the majority of advanced, veteran groups) is a 3/3/3 default with very clear, explicit information/advice (with as much brevity as possible...keywords would assist this but unfortunately people seem to find their presence too "gamey") on: A) Exactly how shifting that default setup around will affect: 1 - Gameplay and its accompanying table dynamics generally 2 - Expectant output of the various classes specifically with respect to "in-pillar challenges" 3 - Implications on niche infringement B) How each optional feat/power/feature (what have you) will work on its own, how they will synergize with other abilities, and how they will affect gameplay generally. I am all for tons of options but I think the best way forward is explicit, transparent advice on intended roles of classes/feats/synergies/abilities and the potential implications for deviation from the "default settings" and the inclusion or exclusion of various game-altering elements (I suspect you've seen enough of my posts at this point that you know which elements I'm referring to) on both the "feel" of the game (genre and playstyle) and the mechanical resolution of conflicts. I think some folks seem to think that if their playstyle isn't "core" or "default" and then there is corresponding advice/commentary from the developers on deviating from the "default" then inevitably that advice/commentary will stigmatize their playstyle as "toxic" or "hazardous" with some kind of D&D version of the Scarlett Letter. Perhaps it has something to do with the editorializing in the initial 4e texts ("Don't bother with talking to guards or shopkeepers/pedlars" and "Get to the FUN!"). I honestly don't know. I have played every edition and I'm not sure if I've ever played any of them "orthodox" or "default." Nonetheless, I know the value of understanding the "why fors" and the "method to the madness" of the default setting. As such, I think full disclosure on these things and then corresponding advice on the implications of deviation from default and advice on (i) "how to deviate from default to get what you're looking for" is sound engineering of a good TTRPG product. An example of good advice regarding (i) for the next edition is how to handle what you're looking for specifically. Advice of the variety in my earlier post about how to create the kind of character you may have been looking for (the cowardly or combat-incompetent sage) in 4e. Advice about how to decouple your combat actions from your PC so that your action economy is still represented in the encounter but it is just not represented in the fiction as your PC carrying it out. That way; - you get what you want (an incompetent or cowardly combatant). - you still get to express the equivalent action economy of a PC (perhaps your action economy represents the intervention of fate, the odd and unspoken synergy of a veteran unit, divine favor, or manifest destiny...so long as it is something outside of your PCs locus of control) and be involved and have tactical fun. - and the GM will still have the luxury of predictable results from the group relative to the expected output of the opposition of the encounter he composed. The other option is for advice specifically on how to balance encounters and prepare for "below default # of PCs" groups. I mean, I played 4e with only 3 people (several times with just 2) so I had to work on expressing a normal group's (4 or 5 characters) action economy with numbers short of a full group. That is "unorthodox" and "outside of default". I had to explore this myself and create a ruleset for this. I would have loved it if 4e would have assisted me from the beginning and given me a quality controlled ruleset for this that I didn't have to contrive on my own. Anyhoo, That is me taking the long way to: "I don't disagree with you but <this stuff>" [/QUOTE]

Verification