Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 5504100" data-attributes="member: 996">Well, if you'd kept reading, I said:It's really not even 'childish,' it's a legitimate simulationist issue. You're simulating fantasy, in fantasy, magic does wild, amazing things. If any schmuck with a sharppened bit of metal and chain-link jumpsuit can do wild, amazing things, too, then magic isn't magic, and you're not simulating fantasy. You may be playing a 'balanced' RPG, but you aren't simulating fantasy anymore.I believe I just did.  Again.  In case you missed it the first time.Sure, some of those may have some basis in something other than childish spite.  Maybe not the last one, so much, but some ideas of that sort.But, while the ideas are OK on the face, you also have to consider the probable consequence of pushing those ideas.  Take:"Swinging your sword once per day for rules balance reasons makes no sense to me narratively or in the world." Now, would the person making this statement expect that fighters be allowed to use Combeback Strike or Come And Get It or Thicket of Blades as at-wills?  No.  Obviously not.  Would  he expect that, were his view acted upon, that, rather, those abilities would be taken away from the fighter?  Yes.  What's taking away someone else's toys so you can have fun?  childish spite.So it's not a big stretch to get to the childish spite interpretation of many of these arguments.Now, OTOH."Using an heroic ability only once per day for rules balance reasons makes no sense to me narratively or in the world." Wouldn't be in the same category, at all.  If the idea were to take the narrative flow of the game and make it more situational and simulationist, then there wouldn't be any spite involved (well, unless you got to some spiteful assertions about what you're 'simulating', anyway).  The game could be made to work without the mechanic of dailies: lots of games do.  See the difference?  One is "lets take cool powers away from the fighter, balance be damned."  The other is "lets make the game reflect the narrative it's modeling more seamlessly, while retaining balance."Now, the same aplies to the other side of the issue.  Haters may feel righteously up in arms over the lobotomized fighter in Essentials, but, the point has been made that people at least claim to want to play such a thing.  Most credibly, the claim is made that many players want to play much simpler characters than 4e provided.  And, rather than call them all liars - and, especially if they'll buy a book containing one - catering to them makes sense.  Saying "no, you can't play that sub-class, because it denigrates the awesome parent class I want to play!" is edging towards the childish and petty, or at least it's having a pretty big chip on your shoulder.  OTOH, pointing out how Essentials might have been done better could get the point accross more cogently.For instance, if you wanted to give new players the classically easiest of all classes to play, it wouldn't be the Fighter.  The Fighter was actually quite complex in 3.x, and is not tied to a really specific archetype - even the name 'fighter' is D&D jargon, and to a non-gamer, would conjure up a boxer or jet aircraft more than anything else.  No, you'd want to give them the Barbarian.  The big guy with the big sword and the big attitude.  Who hits stuff.  Familiar to fans and non-fans of Sword & Sorcerery since REH first penned a Conan yarn.For another instance, if you wanted to create a simplified 'on ramp' to an existing game, you wouldn't do it by putting new systems into it that don't already exist in the game.  You wouldn't even do it by taking them out.  You'd put the more complex confusing ones 'behind the curtain' of some simplified choices, and, as players gained familiarity, they'd have to option to start using the more 'advanced' options in a relatively seamless way.  That's exactly how the Warpriest was designed.  It's not how any other Essentials class is deigned.So instead of saying "Argh, Essentials killed my fighter (whose standing here looking only slightly confused rather than dead)."  Say "Essentials got it right with the Warpriest, but the Martial Classes could have been done better."  Or just lie and say "I'm *glad* there are now simpler classes for those who want them," and go on to say  "and it really would defeat the point of a simple class if more material were released for them, so I hope we won't see any future additions to them."</blockquote>

Verification