Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 5798822" data-attributes="member: 42582">You don't think that's a little pejorative? After all, making wheels square stops them from working as wheels. Whereas changing the mechanics of an RPG so that the 15 minute day goes away doesn't stop it from working as an RPG. It is not inherent to the concept of a functioning RPG that it contain a mix of PC types, some of whom are able to nova and have incentives to do so, and some of whom do not.Perhaps the problem is that some mechanical frameworks don't support the pacing or other aspects of scenario design that those folks prefer.Perhaps you are being a bit myopic, then. Plenty of examples have been given upthread, which have nothing to do with training wheels.If a GM wants to run a scenario where the main focus is on exploration of a largely static, magically warded site (ToH would be an example), then a PC who becomes more powerful by nova-ing may overshadow one who cannot nova (depending on the balance of power between a nova-er and a non-nova-er).And even if a GM wants to run a scenario with a timeline, if the timeline is one which does not turn on hours or days, but rather weeks and months, then nova-ing will not be de-incentivised, for the reasons that Hussar gave upthread (nova-ing will add only days, not months, onto the time needed to complete the scenario).For a timeline to amp up the number of encounters from one or two to four or more per day, it has to be a pretty intense, almost hyperactive, timeline. It is not a sign of failing in a GM or a group to want to run non-hyperactive scenarios. It may be that they should not be trying to run those encounters in 3E, however. That is because of features - limitations, perhaps - of 3E as a system, not because of any failings (or need for training) on the part of those GMs or their players.This is true only relative to a set of mechanics.A set of mechanics in which everyone can nova won't cause a problem - just build encounters to suit nova-ing, if it's likely that the players willn nova.A set of mechanics in which nova-ing is ineffective or unavailable or otherwise constrained won't cause a problem - just build encounters to suit the defaul power level.A set of mechanics in which those who can nova have to do so to match the power of those who can't - and I've run RM in this style - will not cause a problem, as long as the nova-ers are free to do so.In any of the three above-mentioned mechanical systems, the set of playstyle choices that produces the problem in 3E will not produce any problem.Yes, what you say is controversial, because it seems to ignore the alternative which many have adopted, of changing the system in one of the ways that I have described, or one of the way [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] has described, or in some further way that no one has mentioned yet.</blockquote>

Verification