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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="eyebeams" data-source="post: 2971848" data-attributes="member: 9225">Well no, they haven't asked for simplification. The entire thrust of 3e's design was based on research that apparently showed that the idea of a simple "friendly" game was a crock and didn't enhance playability at all (in terms of optimizing the minutes of fun in hours of play). If anything the widespread use of house rules to add bells and whistles to D&D is the most representative example of that and 3e is the most complex iteration of the line. Other editions didn't have one task resolution system but they were far less complex in terms of character design and tactics. That ability to take control of your character's abilities and think of ways to exploit them within the system *is* something familiar to MMO players and the like.I'm not sure I agree with the rationale, but that's it.That said, individual encounters as the sole benchmark of a creature's design isn't a good idea -- but it's a good first step to developing a creature. Once you know what a creature's profile should be with respect to a single encounter you can add "what if" scenarios to flesh it out for a campaign. Same thing for spells and class abilities.Development can handle this in two ways. They can either remove as many of the "soft" elements as possible (such as abilities that only work when the DM gives you a specific encounter and things amenable to lots of interpretation at the table) to render it down to a tactical game with character advancement, or they can clearly delineate places where the tactical benchmark has been ignored to allow for campaign and session-scale choices. In this case DMs will need support on how to deal with NPCs, scenario-driven abilities like turning undead and so on.</blockquote>

Verification