Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="SweeneyTodd" data-source="post: 2399895" data-attributes="member: 9391">I don't see that as something D&D 3.x wants to do, and I'll make the comparison to Magic: the Gathering.Both games have two sub-audiences: wide and deep, for want of better classification. The "wide" audience buys a PHB, or a starter deck, and can play. The "deep" audience invests time and money in analyzing the system and buying additional components (splatbooks or boosters) to add customization and power. Both help build the brand, one by having a lot of people with a little investment, and the other by having a limited group with a large investment.The reason I don't think both character building methods are intended to give comparable results is the same reason that the MTG designers have given for why there are "bad" cards. The deep group is given a lot of components (cards, feats, PRCs, whatever), and some are more effective than others, which rewards their investment of time in analyzing them. That kind of design decision is why I personally prefer RPGs that are complete out of the box (for whatever definition you want to use for complete). I'm personally more into games where the reward for strategic play happens during the play phase, rather than the preparation phase. (I think most board games fall into that classification.) Of course, both are valid strategies.</blockquote>