Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 6152419" data-attributes="member: 177">Ah, you see, I view it differently.&nbsp; The magic, for me, is that EVERYONE helps drive the bus.&nbsp; Or, at least, the potential is there.&nbsp; The problems arise when someone is left without useful ways to try to contribute to the journey.&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; So, rather than give something new to one player, you'll take something away from another player.&nbsp; That's your choice, of course, but I don't know that your wizard players will really find that a great solution.You don't need to equate them.&nbsp; You simply have to recognize that the characters that have spells or skills already defined to give them ways to interact with the world to have a leg up on those who have no such pre-defined methods.&nbsp; That's an oldie, but not a goodie - basically, what you're saying is, &quot;A *good* GM/player does not have problems.&quot;&nbsp; There are two basic issues with that stance:1) Plain old elitism.&nbsp; The implication is that &quot;if you aren't good enough, well, to heck with you!&quot;&nbsp; I don't think snobbery is a good basis for game design decisions, either in terms of business, or in terms of the game that is thus produced.2) The logic is weak.&nbsp; It can be applied to *any* aspect of gaming.&nbsp; If anyone has any issue or thing they don't like at the table, we can ascribe it to the players/GM being &quot;not good enough&quot;, dismiss the issue, and go on with life in our feelings of superiority.&nbsp; It may feel good to you, but it is not constructive or helpful to anyone else.&nbsp; It does not help anyone have a better time at the table.2a) Applying this logic, no game actually needs any rules at all.&nbsp; Fighters don't need defined skills?&nbsp; Okay.&nbsp; Well, maybe wizards don't need defined spells, either.&nbsp; And then really, do we need a combat *system*, or is that just a crutch for people who aren't good enough players?&nbsp; That the logic does not stop itself shows that the line drawn is arbitrary, based on personal preference rather than reasoned principle.&nbsp; Which is fine - you can draw such lines for your own game.&nbsp; But your personal preference is not a compelling argument for a designer selling to tens of thousands of people.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Umbran, post: 6152419, member: 177"] Ah, you see, I view it differently. The magic, for me, is that [I]EVERYONE helps drive the bus[/I]. Or, at least, the potential is there. The problems arise when someone is left without useful ways to try to contribute to the journey. So, rather than give something new to one player, you'll take something away from another player. That's your choice, of course, but I don't know that your wizard players will really find that a great solution. You don't need to equate them. You simply have to recognize that the characters that have spells or skills already defined to give them ways to interact with the world to have a leg up on those who have no such pre-defined methods. That's an oldie, but not a goodie - basically, what you're saying is, "A *good* GM/player does not have problems." There are two basic issues with that stance: 1) Plain old elitism. The implication is that "if you aren't good enough, well, to heck with you!" I don't think snobbery is a good basis for game design decisions, either in terms of business, or in terms of the game that is thus produced. 2) The logic is weak. It can be applied to *any* aspect of gaming. If anyone has any issue or thing they don't like at the table, we can ascribe it to the players/GM being "not good enough", dismiss the issue, and go on with life in our feelings of superiority. It may feel good to you, but it is not constructive or helpful to anyone else. It does not help anyone have a better time at the table. 2a) Applying this logic, no game actually needs any rules at all. Fighters don't need defined skills? Okay. Well, maybe wizards don't need defined spells, either. And then really, do we need a combat *system*, or is that just a crutch for people who aren't good enough players? That the logic does not stop itself shows that the line drawn is arbitrary, based on personal preference rather than reasoned principle. Which is fine - you can draw such lines for your own game. But your personal preference is not a compelling argument for a designer selling to tens of thousands of people. [/QUOTE]

Verification