Tony Vargas
Legend
The whole CaS/CaW thing seems like little more than a vieled exercise in calling those labeled as 'perfering CaS' whimps.Whether you prefer CAS or CAW is indeed a subjective preference, and nothing wrong with that. However you calling people who prefer CAW 'munchkins' is just you being a not nice guy.
By the same token, well, if CaW requires class imbalance & loopholes - which 3.5, for instance, supplies in quantity - and so does powergaming (which is labeled a lot of ways, including 'munchkin,' and no one seems to agree on the meanings), there's a corellation, there. Not that any specific person is a powergamer - well, except for me, I can speak for myself, and I do like to powergame in my own way, I just don't enjoy systems that make it too easy/overwhelming - just that a 'CaW supporting system' and a 'susceptible to powergaming system' seem pretty similar.
I mean, if I look at the CaS/CaW distinction independent of system (which isn't easy, given how it's been presented), I'd certainly think I prefered CaW - I love me some strategic as well as tactical challenges, and some non-linear problem-solving. But, I prefer 4e, which, aparently, doesn't support that style at all. (??) Except, of course, it does, it just doesn't disproportionately reward it (balance clearly being a priority).
On another thread I posted about the different ways 'support' is used in this context. I'd think a game supports a style of play if it remains functional when played that way, and doesn't mechanically 'punish' it. But 'support' often seems to mean 'reward' or 'only works with.' :shrug:
Anyway, this thread has brought up some interesting topics that I'd rather discuss, preferably without the constant ragging on 4e (and more general edition warring, of course).
Last edited: