Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="yesnomu" data-source="post: 4654709" data-attributes="member: 77306">OK, but that leads straight to the Shadowrun Hacker problem, where everyone plays their own single-player game and each has very little influence on their teammate's area of expertise.The problems there are:<ul>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">It requires the DM to carefully tailor their campaign to give everyone roughly equal time, instead of telling the story they want to tell and letting the system balance time. This makes DMing more unpleasant and difficult, which the job definitely doesn't need. We want to encourage more new people to DM.</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">It's very hard for a designer to balance, without making the generalist too bad (3.5 bards) or way too good (3.5 druids).</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">It gets boring to play a class without any big highs or lows, like the old-edition fighter. Everyone likes having a time to shine, nobody likes being &quot;just there&quot;, no matter how useful they are.</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">It doesn't encourage teamwork, it encourages &quot;I'm not useful here, I'll stand back and let my friends take care of it&quot;. Again, it's important that everyone be able to contribute to group success in any situation, even if not always to the same extent.</li>
</ul>Seriously, why should it be the DM's job to carefully monitor everyone's fun levels? The game ought to make sure every PC is good for something, and present that situation frequently.No, it's very possible, just make each class contribute in different ways. Defenders take the attacks, leaders buff and heal, controllers debuff the enemy and remove options. Balancing damage output would be impossible, but there are many ways a class can be useful.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="yesnomu, post: 4654709, member: 77306"] OK, but that leads straight to the Shadowrun Hacker problem, where everyone plays their own single-player game and each has very little influence on their teammate's area of expertise. The problems there are: [LIST] [*]It requires the DM to carefully tailor their campaign to give everyone roughly equal time, instead of telling the story they want to tell and letting the system balance time. This makes DMing more unpleasant and difficult, which the job definitely doesn't need. We want to encourage more new people to DM. [*]It's very hard for a designer to balance, without making the generalist too bad (3.5 bards) or way too good (3.5 druids). [*]It gets boring to play a class without any big highs or lows, like the old-edition fighter. Everyone likes having a time to shine, nobody likes being "just there", no matter how useful they are. [*]It doesn't encourage teamwork, it encourages "I'm not useful here, I'll stand back and let my friends take care of it". Again, it's important that everyone be able to contribute to group success in any situation, even if not always to the same extent. [/LIST] Seriously, why should it be the DM's job to carefully monitor everyone's fun levels? [B]The game[/B] ought to make sure every PC is good for something, and present that situation frequently. No, it's very possible, just make each class contribute in different ways. Defenders take the attacks, leaders buff and heal, controllers debuff the enemy and remove options. Balancing damage output would be impossible, but there are many ways a class can be useful. [/QUOTE]

Verification