Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Wicht" data-source="post: 6294746" data-attributes="member: 221">The more this sort of thread occurs, the more I am convinced that many of these issues are not intrinsically rules-based, or at least the rules themselves are not the primary culprit. I hold forth as evidence the fact there are active groups and experienced DMs who do not have these problems. I would not say that they are absolutely a DM problem either, though one should never discount that the DM is a contributor.It seems to me that two potential culprits are play-style and/or player styles. As I have pointed out several times now, groups in which the clerics and wizards primarily buff themselves are playing sub-optimally. And yet &quot;experienced&quot; players keep holding it forth as an example where game-balance breaks down. The practice indicates to me a certain set of ego-centricism on the part of the players and a lack of in-game cooperation. A game meant to be cooperative has become competitive. That right there is an issue that falls outside the purview of the rules. It would be akin to complaining that a Monopoly game in which everyone gives everyone else interest-free loans constantly never seems to end. If that sort of experience is what you want, I would say that there are probably better rulesets; indeed what you want is a system that is less swingy and is balanced optimally for character vs. character interaction. This is not to say Pathfinder can't handle this (I am far from convinced as to the ability of wizards to defeat any and all comers; as I say the average fighter kills dozens of wizards in their adventuring career) but it is to say that it is not the focus of the rules and never has been.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Wicht, post: 6294746, member: 221"] The more this sort of thread occurs, the more I am convinced that many of these issues are not intrinsically rules-based, or at least the rules themselves are not the primary culprit. I hold forth as evidence the fact there are active groups and experienced DMs who do not have these problems. I would not say that they are absolutely a DM problem either, though one should never discount that the DM is a contributor. It seems to me that two potential culprits are play-style and/or player styles. As I have pointed out several times now, groups in which the clerics and wizards primarily buff themselves are playing sub-optimally. And yet "experienced" players keep holding it forth as an example where game-balance breaks down. The practice indicates to me a certain set of ego-centricism on the part of the players and a lack of in-game cooperation. A game meant to be cooperative has become competitive. That right there is an issue that falls outside the purview of the rules. It would be akin to complaining that a Monopoly game in which everyone gives everyone else interest-free loans constantly never seems to end. If that sort of experience is what you want, I would say that there are probably better rulesets; indeed what you want is a system that is less swingy and is balanced optimally for character vs. character interaction. This is not to say Pathfinder can't handle this (I am far from convinced as to the ability of wizards to defeat any and all comers; as I say the average fighter kills dozens of wizards in their adventuring career) but it is to say that it is not the focus of the rules and never has been. [/QUOTE]

Verification