Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="MarkB" data-source="post: 6171532" data-attributes="member: 40176">No, not really. It doesn't hurt to include some shortcuts for quick character generation, but if I'm making a character for anything more than a one-off game, what I value is having the options to build the concept I've envisioned. If that means it takes more time, that's not a major problem for me.And for NPCs and monsters, again, some simple options are good, but not if they result in a bunch of generic opponents with predictable abilities. Yes, make it easy to build mooks, but when I want to fashion a uniquely challenging villain or monster, give me the tools with which to do so.Well, of course classes should be good at things within their area of expertise - if they aren't, what's the point in using a class-based character system? Meaningless statement is meaningless.Players don't experience balance on a larger, adventure-based or campaign-based scale. What they remember is the session they basically had to sit out because their character couldn't contribute, or the awesome campaign-defining climactic moment of triumph during which their character was just standing around. Yes, balance things on the larger scale, but don't neglect the smaller scale in the process.The trick lies in balancing &quot;easy&quot; with &quot;varied&quot; and &quot;flavourful&quot;. I want a system that adapts to the adventure I want to build, not the other way around.I tend to prefer rules that let me know where I stand. In my experience, players who know how to be persuasive with DMs love flexible rules because of all the wonderful ways in which they can bend and fold them to suit their needs.And the game works, for me, so long as it is doing things in ways that I like, and supporting the play styles that I like. Circular argument is circular.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="MarkB, post: 6171532, member: 40176"] No, not really. It doesn't hurt to include some shortcuts for quick character generation, but if I'm making a character for anything more than a one-off game, what I value is having the options to build the concept I've envisioned. If that means it takes more time, that's not a major problem for me. And for NPCs and monsters, again, some simple options are good, but not if they result in a bunch of generic opponents with predictable abilities. Yes, make it easy to build mooks, but when I want to fashion a uniquely challenging villain or monster, give me the tools with which to do so. Well, of course classes should be good at things within their area of expertise - if they aren't, what's the point in using a class-based character system? Meaningless statement is meaningless. Players don't experience balance on a larger, adventure-based or campaign-based scale. What they remember is the session they basically had to sit out because their character couldn't contribute, or the awesome campaign-defining climactic moment of triumph during which their character was just standing around. Yes, balance things on the larger scale, but don't neglect the smaller scale in the process. The trick lies in balancing "easy" with "varied" and "flavourful". I want a system that adapts to the adventure I want to build, not the other way around. I tend to prefer rules that let me know where I stand. In my experience, players who know how to be persuasive with DMs love flexible rules because of all the wonderful ways in which they can bend and fold them to suit their needs. And the game works, for me, so long as it is doing things in ways that I like, and supporting the play styles that I like. Circular argument is circular. [/QUOTE]

Verification