Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="jmartkdr2" data-source="post: 9108055" data-attributes="member: 7017304">I'm disinclined to describe any design choice as a &quot;true issue&quot; with a game - it's not a problem that monopoly doesn't have rules for hiring mobsters to burn down your opponent's hotels, after all. Just not the game they wanted to make.Which means the very long tangent here about what high-level nonmagical fighters and rogues should be able to do is irrelevant to OP's point: even if you believe the designers choose poorly, they made a choice about what those characters should be capable of. They didn't want mundane martials. It might have been more fun for some people if they did, but it wouldn't be objectively better. For me, a true issue would need to be a way the design of the game fails to meet its own goals - and the goal is heroic fantasy adventures. Which means a variable that falls in that category easily, but doesn't work well. I'd say the disparate effects on class balance by shortening the adventuring day falls into that, and broadly martial-caster disparity does as well. I'd separate out the game itself from the presentation - it' all one product but flavor =/= presentation - and note that when it comes to how the books are laid out/presented/organized/etc - there's broad consensus that it could be a lot better with The Terrible Index being the most obvious example. (I will admit m-c disparity is solvable in a couple easy-ish ways, many of which you'd want to do anyways like 'give out magic items,' 'have many encounters,' and 'deliberately focus on certain pc's form time to time.') This is is why most people who actually play at high level rarely seem overly bothered. But the underlying problem is there, because you might not do those things and suddenly you have a problem that can really yuck someone's yum.)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="jmartkdr2, post: 9108055, member: 7017304"] I'm disinclined to describe any design choice as a "true issue" with a game - it's not a problem that monopoly doesn't have rules for hiring mobsters to burn down your opponent's hotels, after all. Just not the game they wanted to make. Which means the very long tangent here about what high-level nonmagical fighters and rogues should be able to do is irrelevant to OP's point: even if you believe the designers choose poorly, they made a choice about what those characters should be capable of. They didn't want mundane martials. It might have been more fun for some people if they did, but it wouldn't be objectively better. For me, a true issue would need to be a way the design of the game fails to meet its own goals - and the goal is heroic fantasy adventures. Which means a variable that falls in that category easily, but doesn't work well. I'd say the disparate effects on class balance by shortening the adventuring day falls into that, and broadly martial-caster disparity does as well. I'd separate out the game itself from the presentation - it' all one product but flavor =/= presentation - and note that when it comes to how the books are laid out/presented/organized/etc - there's broad consensus that it could be a lot better with The Terrible Index being the most obvious example. (I will admit m-c disparity is solvable in a couple easy-ish ways, many of which you'd want to do anyways like 'give out magic items,' 'have many encounters,' and 'deliberately focus on certain pc's form time to time.') This is is why most people who actually play at high level rarely seem overly bothered. But the underlying problem is there, because you might not do those things and suddenly you have a [I]problem[/I] that can really yuck someone's yum.) [/QUOTE]

Verification