Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="knasser" data-source="post: 7000550" data-attributes="member: 65151">Oh, I can answer that very simply. My expectations of the job the game designers did were higher than the reality. Clearly they had made an attempt at balancing it because you exchange attribute points for feats in this system. How was I to know that this wasn't a balanced exchange? Your contention is that it is reasonable to expect a reader to know what takes advanced knowledge and experience of the game just because something is listed as optional. I disagree. If the designers knew that something unbalanced the game and introduced problems they should put a clear warning on it - plainly &quot;Optional&quot; is not a clear warning. And if the designers didn't know that it had this consequence then they haven't done their job well. Either way, there's a problem there that the designers should have addressed.You don't need to use analogies. I doubt there's anyone who doesn't understand what you've said. But an analogy doesn't say anything useful about a specific instance - in this case that making a rule optional is a get-out clause that puts any problems with it on the GM's shoulders. We clearly have very different standards for games we buy.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="knasser, post: 7000550, member: 65151"] Oh, I can answer that very simply. My expectations of the job the game designers did were higher than the reality. Clearly they had made an attempt at balancing it because you exchange attribute points for feats in this system. How was I to know that this wasn't a balanced exchange? Your contention is that it is reasonable to expect a reader to know what takes advanced knowledge and experience of the game just because something is listed as optional. I disagree. If the designers knew that something unbalanced the game and introduced problems they should put a clear warning on it - plainly "Optional" is not a clear warning. And if the designers didn't know that it had this consequence then they haven't done their job well. Either way, there's a problem there that the designers should have addressed. You don't need to use analogies. I doubt there's anyone who doesn't understand what you've said. But an analogy doesn't say anything useful about a specific instance - in this case that making a rule optional is a get-out clause that puts any problems with it on the GM's shoulders. We clearly have very different standards for games we buy. [/QUOTE]

Verification