Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Desdichado" data-source="post: 2236264" data-attributes="member: 2205">I'm not a game designer, but I have done some work in Quality Control of other types of systems.  It seems to me that a game design that cannot accomodate situations that will come up frequently is insufficiently robust.  Sure, you can say that "it was designed for the iconic four person party to face all challenges together as a team," but if you, as a designer know that many, many, many, many gaming groups will play with smaller (or larger) groups, will not have the standard party makeup, will face party splitting, etc. you can't just write that off and say, "well, the game wasn't designed for that, so you're on your own."That strikes me as incredibly poor game design.EDIT:  This applies to your more recent post as well -- what if the party of 4 15[sup]th[/sup] level PCs includes a paladin, a ranger, a warlock and a bard?  Are you balanced then?  You don't have a cleric, you don't have a wizard, you don't have a dedicated frontline fighter, and you don't have a rogue.  Can you still survive the generic CR 12 encounter in that case, even with your magic items?  Who knows?  You've discarded a primary tenet of the game's design by not having the four iconic classes.That's really poor game design if you have that many restrictions on what you can play and still consider it balanced.  Of course, my contention is that balance is not that fragile, because the CR system isn't that robust anyway; it still requires DM intervention.  In doing so, the magic system being inherent to the "balance" is a meaningless statement, if DM intervention is still a requirement.  That's why I also don't accept Gez's position.  The quality of your "balance" isn't really that improved by strictly following the wealth and magic item guidelines, it's still too dependent on DM intervention for that.</blockquote>

Verification