Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 5978011" data-attributes="member: 6696971">While &quot;social science&quot; polls are already dubious enough, you've added a considerable amount of noise that you have to filter out to even get a glimpse of the tea leaves that will confirm or deny your null hypothesis.With consideration for your null hypothesis, I don't know why you included DMs into the framework of the poll and I don't know why you didn't narrow the choices to martial/hybrid caster vs pure caster.For what its worth, I can give you a few anecdotal data points (beyond my own) of my tenured players over the years.For 2e and specifically 3e: - 7 players play(ed) martial or hybrid archetypes exclusively, recognize their relative weakness to pure casters (level 9 and beyond), rage against it in and out of game, and entrust/expect me to fix it and/or work around it (AAAAAAAAAAARGH)- 2 players play(ed) eccentric class/race combinations and were more interested in being &quot;color&quot; than they were in caring about what was happening in the fiction.&nbsp; They were just hanging out with friends and were indifferent to game theory.- 1 player play(ed) druids exclusively because of the flavor of the class.&nbsp; She was/is a very fine non-linear problem solver and exposed the potency of this class (3e) throughout the course of a 5 year long campaign. - 3 players play(ed) generalist wizards almost exclusively (or specialist problem solvers in 2e).&nbsp;&nbsp; They were/are very fine non-linear and linear problem solvers.&nbsp; They made games terrifically &quot;unfun&quot; and &quot;high maintenance&quot; from the DM side of the screen during play, during prep, and during post-game dispute arbitration with players who felt irrelevant (see the first group - 3 of those 7 were particularly sensitive to this) throughout the course of a 4 year long campaign and a 5 year long campaign.&nbsp; 2 of them knew they broke the game after level 9 and reveled in it.&nbsp; The other one worked with me considerably to rein in his power and/or sideline his (acknowledged) game-breaking capabilities. - I've DMed probably 30ish other players over the years (from 6 months to 2 years in duration) but those 13 were the primary players from 2 dispirate groups in the course of 20 + years of DMing.In 4e, I've not DMed any of the primary casters (although one of the former martial exclusive players finally played a wizard - and loved it).&nbsp; My games have been small with 3 players and 2 players.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Manbearcat, post: 5978011, member: 6696971"] While "social science" polls are already dubious enough, you've added a considerable amount of noise that you have to filter out to even get a glimpse of the tea leaves that will confirm or deny your null hypothesis. With consideration for your null hypothesis, I don't know why you included DMs into the framework of the poll and I don't know why you didn't narrow the choices to martial/hybrid caster vs pure caster. For what its worth, I can give you a few anecdotal data points (beyond my own) of my tenured players over the years. For 2e and specifically 3e: - 7 players play(ed) martial or hybrid archetypes exclusively, recognize their relative weakness to pure casters (level 9 and beyond), rage against it in and out of game, and entrust/expect me to fix it and/or work around it (AAAAAAAAAAARGH) - 2 players play(ed) eccentric class/race combinations and were more interested in being "color" than they were in caring about what was happening in the fiction. They were just hanging out with friends and were indifferent to game theory. - 1 player play(ed) druids exclusively because of the flavor of the class. She was/is a very fine non-linear problem solver and exposed the potency of this class (3e) throughout the course of a 5 year long campaign. - 3 players play(ed) generalist wizards almost exclusively (or specialist problem solvers in 2e). They were/are very fine non-linear and linear problem solvers. They made games terrifically "unfun" and "high maintenance" from the DM side of the screen during play, during prep, and during post-game dispute arbitration with players who felt irrelevant (see the first group - 3 of those 7 were particularly sensitive to this) throughout the course of a 4 year long campaign and a 5 year long campaign. 2 of them knew they broke the game after level 9 and reveled in it. The other one worked with me considerably to rein in his power and/or sideline his (acknowledged) game-breaking capabilities. - I've DMed probably 30ish other players over the years (from 6 months to 2 years in duration) but those 13 were the primary players from 2 dispirate groups in the course of 20 + years of DMing. In 4e, I've not DMed any of the primary casters (although one of the former martial exclusive players finally played a wizard - and loved it). My games have been small with 3 players and 2 players. [/QUOTE]

Verification