Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ratskinner" data-source="post: 5991483" data-attributes="member: 6688937">It didn't in the old days. I've been in more than one party that faced a beastie that we quickly realized we had no ability to hurt. I'm sure people's experiences vary, but I don't recall anyone ever expecting to be handed magic items until 3e came along and put price tags on them and told you how rich you should be at level X. Of course, it ain't the old days anymore. I'd be mildly surprised if time and fashion hadn't changed that expectation.Honestly, its really not that hard. (at least it wasn't &quot;back in the day&quot;) Furthermore, it sounds to me like they are intentionally trying to make it easier than in the current editions. 3\4e exacerbate balance issues by ratcheting up ACs and DCs every level, that's part of the problem that Bounded Accuracy is intended to solve. (Experience with some older versions would indicate this is quite likely to work.) Besides, wouldn't you want control over things like the difficulty of the encounters to set a mood for the campaign?Now, as for formalized guidelines being bad....well that depends on a few things. Firstly, the presentation of the guidelines. Experience/history indicates that the probability of the players considering a guideline the &quot;word of the gods&quot; is directly proportional to the specificity of that guideline. (Especially if there is a hint of &quot;math&quot; to it.) If you include enough of those in your game...suddenly you've locked-down playstyle. The second thing I've noticed is a bit more subtle or perhaps subjective. If the guideline in question can be construed as, and especially if its presented as, being important for &quot;fairness&quot; or &quot;balance&quot; wrt to DM/player interaction...it will be assumed &quot;word of the gods or you're a bad DM. It says so right here.&quot;</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ratskinner, post: 5991483, member: 6688937"] It didn't in the old days. I've been in more than one party that faced a beastie that we quickly realized we had no ability to hurt. I'm sure people's experiences vary, but I don't recall anyone [I]ever[/I] expecting to be handed magic items until 3e came along and put price tags on them and told you how rich you should be at level X. Of course, it ain't the old days anymore. I'd be mildly surprised if time and fashion hadn't changed that expectation. Honestly, its really not that hard. (at least it wasn't "back in the day") Furthermore, it sounds to me like they are intentionally trying to make it easier than in the current editions. 3\4e exacerbate balance issues by ratcheting up ACs and DCs every level, that's part of the problem that Bounded Accuracy is intended to solve. (Experience with some older versions would indicate this is quite likely to work.) Besides, wouldn't you [I]want[/I] control over things like the difficulty of the encounters to set a mood for the campaign? Now, as for formalized guidelines being bad....well that depends on a few things. Firstly, the presentation of the guidelines. Experience/history indicates that the probability of the players considering a guideline the "word of the gods" is directly proportional to the specificity of that guideline. (Especially if there is a hint of "math" to it.) If you include enough of those in your game...suddenly you've locked-down playstyle. The second thing I've noticed is a bit more subtle or perhaps subjective. If the guideline in question can be construed as, and especially if its presented as, being important for "fairness" or "balance" wrt to DM/player interaction...it will be assumed "word of the gods or you're a bad DM. It says so right here." [/QUOTE]

Verification