Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Imaro" data-source="post: 4655565" data-attributes="member: 48965">Nothing at all wrong with this unless... you're idea of what made the game &quot;fun&quot; doesn't sync up with mine, and/or you remove/alter/change/etc. what is fun for me in the game in order to achieve your &quot;balance&quot;.&nbsp; If it's one thing about D&amp;D I've come to realize, it's that everyone doesn't play for the same reasons/experience/etc.You see, you're assuming what is &quot;more fun&quot; for everyone... what's true for you is not necessarily what is true for others.&nbsp; A gamer may like the simplicity of a 3e fighter as opposed to a 4e fighter, regardless of the power disparity, because he just wants to hang out with friends, have a good time and not necessarily have to think so tactically as 4e requires.&nbsp;And how do you define &quot;fun&quot;?&nbsp; How much fun does a ranger equal as opposed to a fighter in 4e... you're trying to quantify something that is subjective to each individual... though I will say WotC did a good job on marketing their direction as being the accepted &quot;More Fun!!&quot; for the game.I'm confused by this whole section... are you talking about 4e?&nbsp; Because if so a 1st level Fighter in a head up fight will slaughter a wizard (of course 4e wasn't designed for PC vs. PC fights and with exception based monster design you can create a &quot;wizard&quot; anyone can beat).&nbsp; So, yeah not getting the point here.&nbsp; Is it any better that a 1st level PC fighter will always beat a 1st level PC Wizard in a head up fight?Because it's not the Conan rpg... that's by Mongoose.&nbsp; And honestly Conan gets knocked out, captured, etc. by wizards in the original stories.&nbsp; Now in 3e I would say he catches them either by surprise or when they are weak (spells used up).&nbsp; In 4e...not sure how it actually plays out in anyway like a Conan story, but if it works for you...What, now you've lost me.&nbsp; What does this have to do with balance being desirable or not.&nbsp; All you did was create your own assumptions about fantasy and proclaim them as &quot;truth&quot; for &quot;fun&quot;.&nbsp; Why is this any more valid than the archetype of Merlin, Gandalf, Milamber, etc.&nbsp; who were wizards that made or broke empires, fought Balrogs and shattered kingdoms?&nbsp; I guess Ars Magica isn't &quot;fun&quot;.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Imaro, post: 4655565, member: 48965"] Nothing at all wrong with this unless... you're idea of what made the game "fun" doesn't sync up with mine, and/or you remove/alter/change/etc. what is fun for me in the game in order to achieve your "balance". If it's one thing about D&D I've come to realize, it's that everyone doesn't play for the same reasons/experience/etc. You see, you're assuming what is "more fun" for everyone... what's true for [B]you[/B] is not necessarily what is true for others. A gamer may like the simplicity of a 3e fighter as opposed to a 4e fighter, regardless of the power disparity, because he just wants to hang out with friends, have a good time and not necessarily have to think so tactically as 4e requires. And how do you define "fun"? How much fun does a ranger equal as opposed to a fighter in 4e... you're trying to quantify something that is subjective to each individual... though I will say WotC did a good job on marketing their direction as being the accepted "More Fun!!" for the game. I'm confused by this whole section... are you talking about 4e? Because if so a 1st level Fighter in a head up fight will slaughter a wizard (of course 4e wasn't designed for PC vs. PC fights and with exception based monster design you can create a "wizard" anyone can beat). So, yeah not getting the point here. Is it any better that a 1st level PC fighter will always beat a 1st level PC Wizard in a head up fight? Because it's not the Conan rpg... that's by Mongoose. And honestly Conan gets knocked out, captured, etc. by wizards in the original stories. Now in 3e I would say he catches them either by surprise or when they are weak (spells used up). In 4e...not sure how it actually plays out in anyway like a Conan story, but if it works for [B]you[/B]... What, now you've lost me. What does this have to do with balance being desirable or not. All you did was create your own assumptions about fantasy and proclaim them as "truth" for "fun". Why is this any more valid than the archetype of Merlin, Gandalf, Milamber, etc. who were wizards that made or broke empires, fought Balrogs and shattered kingdoms? I guess Ars Magica isn't "fun". [/QUOTE]

Verification