Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 4726987" data-attributes="member: 18280">Didn't I say that?Not so.&nbsp; The complexity of options increases as character level increases.&nbsp; Therefore, in order to maintain the same competent use of assets available, one must become more competent in terms of understanding those assets overall.A 10th level game that assumes competence with assets is more complex than a 1st level game that assumes competence with assets (even if the same level of competence is assumed) because the 10th level game has more/more complex assets.Or Joe could create a first level character and you could all make first level characters with him without scrapping your existing game.The answer that I advocated earlier, the answer that Gary advocated in the 1e DMG, and the answer that you ignored in your analysis.Who said anything about &quot;consciously wanting disparity in power between party members&quot;?&nbsp; There is a difference between allowing disparity to occur and engineering it.&nbsp; If the players provide the ultimate balance in the game, then it is the players who create the power disparity.&nbsp; I believe in allowing the players to do so.The only way to absolutely prevent mechanical disparity in power between party members is to force all players to use exactly the same stats.&nbsp; The only way to absolutely prevent disparity in power between party members at all is to also force the players to play those same stats in the same way.Would you force your players to divide loot and magic items so as to maintain power balance?&nbsp; Would you force your players to choose only optimal options?So let me return the question:&nbsp; Why would you consciously want a balance of power between party members instead of a power disparity?&nbsp; What goal is served?Because, so far as I can tell, preventing a disparity of power can only be done by (1) making everyone the same, and (2) actively punishing good play.&nbsp; I, for one, want nothing to do with such a game.RC</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Raven Crowking, post: 4726987, member: 18280"] Didn't I say that? Not so. The complexity of options increases as character level increases. Therefore, in order to maintain the same competent use of assets available, one must become more competent in terms of understanding those assets overall. A 10th level game that assumes competence with assets is more complex than a 1st level game that assumes competence with assets (even if the same level of competence is assumed) because the 10th level game has more/more complex assets. Or Joe could create a first level character and you could all make first level characters with him without scrapping your existing game. The answer that I advocated earlier, the answer that Gary advocated in the 1e DMG, and the answer that you ignored in your analysis. Who said anything about "consciously wanting disparity in power between party members"? There is a difference between allowing disparity to occur and engineering it. If the players provide the ultimate balance in the game, then it is the players who create the power disparity. I believe in allowing the players to do so. The only way to absolutely prevent mechanical disparity in power between party members is to force all players to use exactly the same stats. The only way to absolutely prevent disparity in power between party members [I][B]at all[/B][/I] is to also force the players to play those same stats in the same way. Would you force your players to divide loot and magic items so as to maintain power balance? Would you force your players to choose only optimal options? So let me return the question: Why would you consciously want a balance of power between party members instead of a power disparity? What goal is served? Because, so far as I can tell, preventing a disparity of power can only be done by (1) making everyone the same, and (2) actively punishing good play. I, for one, want nothing to do with such a game. RC [/QUOTE]

Verification