Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 7388615" data-attributes="member: 82106">Odds of success at what? Making the game boring?! Here let me note that for YEARS, during the Great Edition Wars, whenever someone would contrast 4e's balanced PCs against 3e's crazy disparities and potentially monstrously overpowered things like 'CoDzilla' we were told that this was of no concern because players simply aren't interested in ruining games, or at the very least the GM can just give them a 'slap' or something and its all just OK. But the very notion that it could be in the player's hands when its Story Now is a terrible failing of the whole technique. Now, I am certainly not accusing you of taking the former position on 3e, but it is amusing how ANYTHING can be argued against! The point is, I think its perfectly feasible to give players some credit. Maybe its also best to provide them with mechanics that don't tempt them to bend the game that way, as they are likely to be advocates of their characters and thus the temptation exists. I do firmly advocate for a system where 'creating a dramatically interesting character' and 'creating a mechanically useful character' are consistent goals. I'd say it points out that coherent games with rules centered on character exposition and definition are probably a good thing! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="AbdulAlhazred, post: 7388615, member: 82106"] Odds of success at what? Making the game boring?! Here let me note that for YEARS, during the Great Edition Wars, whenever someone would contrast 4e's balanced PCs against 3e's crazy disparities and potentially monstrously overpowered things like 'CoDzilla' we were told that this was of no concern because players simply aren't interested in ruining games, or at the very least the GM can just give them a 'slap' or something and its all just OK. But the very notion that it could be in the player's hands when its Story Now is a terrible failing of the whole technique. Now, I am certainly not accusing you of taking the former position on 3e, but it is amusing how ANYTHING can be argued against! The point is, I think its perfectly feasible to give players some credit. Maybe its also best to provide them with mechanics that don't tempt them to bend the game that way, as they are likely to be advocates of their characters and thus the temptation exists. I do firmly advocate for a system where 'creating a dramatically interesting character' and 'creating a mechanically useful character' are consistent goals. I'd say it points out that coherent games with rules centered on character exposition and definition are probably a good thing! :) [/QUOTE]

Verification