Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 5024377" data-attributes="member: 177">There's a major difference between producing optional unbalanced elements for a game with a solid foundation, and a game that doesn't have a balanced foundation to begin with.Please do not attempt to tell me what I do and don't accept.I understand that they aim to have the game appeal to as wide an audience as possible.&nbsp; However, a game that requires an initial investment of hundreds of pages of rules, and has many hundreds of more pages already published beyond that, has lost the &quot;don't want to confuse an alienate folks&quot; battle already.&nbsp; A book or two of more highly advanced stuff isn't going to have a notable impact on that score.&nbsp; They are building the game in many ways to the lowest common denominator, because that is what they've determined to be the best way to get the widest range and amount of people to play the game.Again with the telling me what I think and want.&nbsp; Stop that.&nbsp; It is rude, and also incorrect.I make my games my own so much so that the online tools they provide are often worthless to me.&nbsp; That doesn't mean I don't want to see a professional take on it, that has had multiple brains applied to the ideas, and maybe some more playtesting than I can provide before putting it into my own games, and so on.I don't think that's true.&nbsp; Does LFR really bring in so much money that this needs to be a consideration?This is a stronger point.&nbsp; I still don't think it is strictly true, but even if it is, if GMs don't review what they are handed by their players, I don't think they're doing their jobs as well as they should.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Umbran, post: 5024377, member: 177"] There's a major difference between producing optional unbalanced elements for a game with a solid foundation, and a game that doesn't have a balanced foundation to begin with. Please do not attempt to tell me what I do and don't accept. I understand that they aim to have the game appeal to as wide an audience as possible. However, a game that requires an initial investment of hundreds of pages of rules, and has many hundreds of more pages already published beyond that, has lost the "don't want to confuse an alienate folks" battle already. A book or two of more highly advanced stuff isn't going to have a notable impact on that score. They are building the game in many ways to the lowest common denominator, because that is what they've determined to be the best way to get the widest range and amount of people to play the game. Again with the telling me what I think and want. Stop that. It is rude, and also incorrect. I make my games my own so much so that the online tools they provide are often worthless to me. That doesn't mean I don't want to see a professional take on it, that has had multiple brains applied to the ideas, and maybe some more playtesting than I can provide before putting it into my own games, and so on. I don't think that's true. Does LFR really bring in so much money that this needs to be a consideration? This is a stronger point. I still don't think it is strictly true, but even if it is, if GMs don't review what they are handed by their players, I don't think they're doing their jobs as well as they should. [/QUOTE]

Verification