Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Psion" data-source="post: 1846058" data-attributes="member: 172">/me flashes back to how cool I thought OTE was going to be back in the day, compared to how cool it really turned out to be.Players vary, but lots of players like crunch.I think that complexity on the GM side of the screen is an issue (as I expressed in another thread). It's less of an issue when you take a step back and consider the ratio of time you spend making things compared to time it actually gets used in the game. Then you begin to realize the benefits of &quot;faking it.&quot;This is why, among many other disgruntlements with 3.5, the fact that stock NPCs in the DMG are less &quot;out of the book&quot; friendly is one of the more commonly sited issues people have with the 3.5 DMG.Savage Worlds, I think, had a noble goal: to have rich detail on the player's side, but have ease of use on the GM side. Alas, it fails. No system that sums up spellcasting capability with just die type is sufficient detail for the type of NPCs I like to create.I don't think it's a &quot;trend&quot; when you consider the likely long term evolution. I think it's coming off a peak that is to be expected; I imagine we'll settle into an equilibrium. Some people had expectations that weren't met, and moved on.ENWorld has its share of vocal detractors of the system who can't get over attributes of the system that other people seem to like. And in absence of getting their way, they feel the need to be disruptive to get their point across and &quot;stick it to the man&quot;, and constantly (to use an RPGnet term) &quot;threadcrap&quot; and butt in otherwise productive threads to express their dismay at the system not suiting them. I think you estimate a few shrill voices to be rather more significant than they really are, because, well, they want so badly to feel like they are being heard.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Psion, post: 1846058, member: 172"] /me flashes back to how cool I thought OTE was going to be back in the day, compared to how cool it really turned out to be. Players vary, but lots of players like crunch. I think that complexity on the GM side of the screen [i]is[/i] an issue (as I expressed in another thread). It's less of an issue when you take a step back and consider the ratio of time you spend making things compared to time it actually gets used in the game. Then you begin to realize the benefits of "faking it." This is why, among many other disgruntlements with 3.5, the fact that stock NPCs in the DMG are less "out of the book" friendly is one of the more commonly sited issues people have with the 3.5 DMG. [i]Savage Worlds[/i], I think, had a noble goal: to have rich detail on the player's side, but have ease of use on the GM side. Alas, it fails. No system that sums up spellcasting capability with just die type is sufficient detail for the type of NPCs I like to create. I don't think it's a "trend" when you consider the likely long term evolution. I think it's coming off a peak that is to be expected; I imagine we'll settle into an equilibrium. Some people had expectations that weren't met, and moved on. ENWorld has its share of vocal detractors of the system who can't get over attributes of the system that other people seem to like. And in absence of getting their way, they feel the need to be disruptive to get their point across and "stick it to the man", and constantly (to use an RPGnet term) "threadcrap" and butt in otherwise productive threads to express their dismay at the system not suiting them. I think you estimate a few shrill voices to be rather more significant than they really are, because, well, they want so badly to feel like they are being heard. [/QUOTE]

Verification