Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Imaro" data-source="post: 4654829" data-attributes="member: 48965">I don't necessarily see this as a problem, especially in systems where these &quot;single-player games&quot; are resolved quickly and with a minimum of rolls (unlike hacking in Shadowrun or Cyberpunk). If I choose an area of expertise... I made a conscious choice because I want to shine... not depend on someone else at that point.<ul>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul"> 
 
 Shouldn't any DM cater their campaign to their players (perhaps this is what should be taught to new DM's as in the long run it will create a better play experience for all involved as opposed to a one size fits all mentality)... I mean honestly in any system where the characters have at least a minimum of relevant choices in character creation... there will be variability and thus the GM has to take into account that variability.&nbsp; As far as &quot;telling the story they want to tell&quot;... I don't think a GM should be striving for this,&nbsp; He should be letting the PC's create the type of story they want to create by using the characters they enjoy playing. 
 
 
 
I think this only applies when trying to balance around one specific aspect of a game. I mean the generalist is not suppose to be as good at combat as the master warrior, but if your game is balanced only around combat you run into a big problem here... since no other yardsticks of measurement are considered... The funny thing is that in doing this (balancing around one specific thing) you have no choice but to limit and focus the game on that aspect as opposed to others. 
 
 
 
 I'm curious how one &quot;shines&quot; when everyone is equal? I mean IMO, that's booring... especially, again, when your players aren't all focused on combat. Another thing is that sometimes adversity is fun to overcome... in other words, some of the fun of the game is actually figuring a way to be active in a situation where one may be at a disadvantage. 
 
 
 
 I'm curious, why is your definition of &quot;balance&quot; centered around combat? Let me ask you a question... In 4e why do certain classes like the Fighter (3 skills) get way less skills than say the Rogue (6 skills)... I mean is this &quot;balanced&quot;, especially since one can gain XP for using skills. Honestly if the classes are balanced in combat, why the giant disparity in what they can do outside of combat?</li>
</ul></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Imaro, post: 4654829, member: 48965"] I don't necessarily see this as a problem, especially in systems where these "single-player games" are resolved quickly and with a minimum of rolls (unlike hacking in Shadowrun or Cyberpunk). If I choose an area of expertise... I made a conscious choice because I want to shine... not depend on someone else at that point. [LIST] Shouldn't any DM cater their campaign to their players (perhaps this is what should be taught to new DM's as in the long run it will create a better play experience for all involved as opposed to a one size fits all mentality)... I mean honestly in any system where the characters have at least a minimum of relevant choices in character creation... there will be variability and thus the GM has to take into account that variability. As far as "telling the story they want to tell"... I don't think a GM should be striving for this, He should be letting the PC's create the type of story they want to create by using the characters they enjoy playing. I think this only applies when trying to balance around one specific aspect of a game. I mean the generalist is not suppose to be as good at combat as the master warrior, but if your game is balanced only around combat you run into a big problem here... since no other yardsticks of measurement are considered... The funny thing is that in doing this (balancing around one specific thing) you have no choice but to limit and focus the game on that aspect as opposed to others. I'm curious how one "shines" when everyone is equal? I mean IMO, that's booring... especially, again, when your players aren't all focused on combat. Another thing is that sometimes adversity is fun to overcome... in other words, some of the fun of the game is actually figuring a way to be active in a situation where one may be at a disadvantage. I'm curious, why is your definition of "balance" centered around combat? Let me ask you a question... In 4e why do certain classes like the Fighter (3 skills) get way less skills than say the Rogue (6 skills)... I mean is this "balanced", especially since one can gain XP for using skills. Honestly if the classes are balanced in combat, why the giant disparity in what they can do outside of combat?[/list] [/QUOTE]

Verification