Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Belen" data-source="post: 1472427" data-attributes="member: 1405">Matt,You just highlighted the very reasons why those changes should NOT have been made.&nbsp; Basically, you are saying that 3e is not 3e unless you have Paladins and Sorcerers?&nbsp; Also, how do you know those changes will fit the broadest audience?&nbsp; Did Paizo do a lot of market research on DS before making those changes?This is a problem with 3e in general.&nbsp; The entire rules set has been min/max'd.&nbsp; Maximize options for player benefit, minimize restrictions.&nbsp; Yes, the DMG gives lip service to rule Zero, but WOTC has done everything in its power to imply that rule zero does not/ should not exist.However, the rules set can be a restriction itself.&nbsp; Can players still come up with interesting ways to defeat monsters? Not until they have spent time looking for the rule that covers it.The implied nature of 3e says that rules trump flavor.&nbsp; And this implied nature has been built into all the players that started with 3e.What you have just told me is that Dragon and Paizo does not want to challenge players.&nbsp; Paizo does not want to push the envelope on game design or take risks.&nbsp; A risk may garner great rewards, but you are all afraid of failing.Is this why we do not see exciting issues any longer?&nbsp; Is this why Dragon has become a simple rules mag?What you have said is that restricting classes was a risk.&nbsp; You'd rather be inclusive than challenge the players.&nbsp; You do not feel that the environment should be truly dangerous for players because monster fighting is the real goal of DnD.&nbsp; Flavor is secondary to the rules and should not play a large part in a DnD campaign world......Hope that makes sense.I do appreciate your post, but I am disapointed by the implied culture at Paizo.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Belen, post: 1472427, member: 1405"] Matt, You just highlighted the very reasons why those changes should NOT have been made. Basically, you are saying that 3e is not 3e unless you have Paladins and Sorcerers? Also, how do you know those changes will fit the broadest audience? Did Paizo do a lot of market research on DS before making those changes? This is a problem with 3e in general. The entire rules set has been min/max'd. Maximize options for player benefit, minimize restrictions. Yes, the DMG gives lip service to rule Zero, but WOTC has done everything in its power to imply that rule zero does not/ should not exist. However, the rules set can be a restriction itself. Can players still come up with interesting ways to defeat monsters? Not until they have spent time looking for the rule that covers it. The implied nature of 3e says that rules trump flavor. And this implied nature has been built into all the players that started with 3e. What you have just told me is that Dragon and Paizo does not want to challenge players. Paizo does not want to push the envelope on game design or take risks. A risk may garner great rewards, but you are all afraid of failing. Is this why we do not see exciting issues any longer? Is this why Dragon has become a simple rules mag? What you have said is that restricting classes was a risk. You'd rather be inclusive than challenge the players. You do not feel that the environment should be truly dangerous for players because monster fighting is the real goal of DnD. Flavor is secondary to the rules and should not play a large part in a DnD campaign world...... Hope that makes sense. I do appreciate your post, but I am disapointed by the implied culture at Paizo. [/QUOTE]

Verification