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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Bendris Noulg" data-source="post: 1329814" data-attributes="member: 6398">Funny, that's what I said too.  Go ahead, read my post.  You'll see it in there. Something else I'm saying, though, is that the "equal opportunity" mind set (one that is more reflective of how the Machina Politico would like us to see the world as opposed to how the world really is) leads some people into believing that if for once they don't share the spotlight for just a moment and someone else is shining just a bit bright for a single session, that they have been denied their "fair shake" and that the GM sucks.  Sure, a team mentality is extremely helpful in solving many problems, but it needn't be the one and only way to solve problems and a GM shouldn't be forced to pidgeon-hole every issue into such a mold. Individuals will shine.  In a properly run game, everyone gets a shot.  In a poorly run game, it's a few of the whole.  It's important not to immediately assume the later because of a false belief that the former isn't possible. I also find the assessment incorrect.  That is to say, the combination is only a problem by manner of scenario design, not by level desparity. For instance, let's look at Pirates of the Carribean.  Sure, Jack Sparrow was quite a few levels up on Will Turner, but in the final battle in the treasure cave, was Will Turner left twiddling his thumbs while Jack Sparrow fought the BBEG?  No, Turner had plenty of other tasks to accomplish during the same span of time (i.e., villains and challenges properly rated for him).  And, in the end, it was Turner's own actions that ended the curse and won the fight. I agree that the game itself doesn't do this, and it's probably best that it doesn't.  However, a good GM with a firm grasp of what the characters can do (as individual abilities, not just a general number determined by averaging character levels) should have little problem doing it. Now, if a GM runs a game that is simply combat>combat>combat, then yes, the desparity is going to show quite clearly.  But then again, the DMG indicates (3.0 page 8, don't know what page in 3.5) that games that are mostly focused on combat have a greater need for mechanical balance.  However, it also says that this style of play is an extreme condition, just like games that are 99% role-play are an extreme condition but are less bound to the dictates of mechanical balance.  It also goes on to indicate that most games fall in the middle ground, with balance being a good contributor to fun but not oh-so-important that the GM should jump through hoops to maintain it at all times.  So, while preaching balance to a degree is a good thing, preaching it too much runs the risk of making it seem to be far more important over-all than it really is. On this, I agree.  However, it doesn't seem to be the topic of discussion.  After all, this issue was eliminated with the general class design of 3E.  The question is, now that the system is as balanced as it is, is there really any point trying to make it "more" balanced, or it is balanced enough for everyone's needs?  I'd say the later, although I can imagine some (like the more mathematically focused amongst us that Henry points out) to go over everything with a tweazers and whine about a .001% desparity at Level 100.  To me it's not worth it.  The game works well enough for the majority of games being played.</blockquote>

Verification