Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 7520256" data-attributes="member: 6696971">100 %  Essentially, this was my point. So I’d rather discuss more interesting things (like design’s impact on play).Things like cognitive workload and overhead are definitely worthy discussion points when it comes to GMing and PCing (which intersects with class design), but I think we need to do so with the understanding that some GMs and some players prefer more or less cognitive workload and/or overhead and sometimes they prefers them in some places while wanting them minimized elsewhere.It’s no secret that as a GM, I champion cognitive workload and overhead in certain areas of system while abhorring it in others. Meanwhile, there are plenty of GMs that feel stripping them of the cognitive workload and overhead I abhor is damaging to their gaming experience.I’m sure the same goes for Fighters and Spellcasters. Some players love more complex resource suites + attendant management and ability-intensive decision-points with multiple orders of interactions...some don’t. Some love martial archetypes. Some love spellcaster archetypes. Sorting out the Venn Diagram of that would be difficult (but doable).</blockquote>