Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Thasmodious" data-source="post: 4524085" data-attributes="member: 63272">I completely disagree with that.&nbsp; What it adds, is pain in the DMs ass and an huge increase in prep time.&nbsp; Making everything jive on the same power framework was a nice theory (and one new to 3e, it was not this way in previous editions).&nbsp; It was put into the arena and tested, and, imo, failed.&nbsp; It added mounds of prep work for the game to maintain because everything had to be built on the most complex system of any RPG (or most) - the PC.&nbsp; Since the PC is the unit by which the player interacts with the game, it is, by necessity, complex.&nbsp; Monsters that are meant to be killed and NPC merchants that are not, do not need to be built on that same scale.&nbsp; They need to be built to perform their game functions - dying and servicing the PCs.&nbsp; It is not necessary to know the exact craft score of the NPC blacksmith who is crafting the fighter's shiny new.&nbsp; The PCs shouldn't have that information, and the DM doesn't have a need to make die rolls for the NPCs to do things when the PCs aren't there.&nbsp; It's a lot of needed work for nothing.&nbsp; It was the idea I was most excited about with 3e, but the one that worked the least, again, imo.You're not supposed to learn he's third level.&nbsp; Demanding explanations for metagame concerns doesn't sound like the secret to versimilitude to me.&nbsp; Now, if you wonder how he controlled all those undead... yes, that requires explanation, if the PCs want to know it.&nbsp; But that explanation doesn't have to be on pg. xx of the DMG.&nbsp; It's an ingame, story explanation.&nbsp;&nbsp; The real reason is &quot;because I wanted him to, because it is cool, whatever.&quot;&nbsp; An evil talisman and some dark rite, a bargain with a devil, the necrotic pillar the the PCs destroyed to defeat the undead menace...&nbsp; It needs explaining.&nbsp; Word.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Thasmodious, post: 4524085, member: 63272"] I completely disagree with that. What it adds, is pain in the DMs ass and an huge increase in prep time. Making everything jive on the same power framework was a nice theory (and one new to 3e, it was not this way in previous editions). It was put into the arena and tested, and, imo, failed. It added mounds of prep work for the game to maintain because everything had to be built on the most complex system of any RPG (or most) - the PC. Since the PC is the unit by which the player interacts with the game, it is, by necessity, complex. Monsters that are meant to be killed and NPC merchants that are not, do not need to be built on that same scale. They need to be built to perform their game functions - dying and servicing the PCs. It is not necessary to know the exact craft score of the NPC blacksmith who is crafting the fighter's shiny new. The PCs shouldn't have that information, and the DM doesn't have a need to make die rolls for the NPCs to do things when the PCs aren't there. It's a lot of needed work for nothing. It was the idea I was most excited about with 3e, but the one that worked the least, again, imo. You're not supposed to learn he's third level. Demanding explanations for metagame concerns doesn't sound like the secret to versimilitude to me. Now, if you wonder how he controlled all those undead... yes, that requires explanation, if the PCs want to know it. But that explanation doesn't have to be on pg. xx of the DMG. It's an ingame, story explanation. The real reason is "because I wanted him to, because it is cool, whatever." An evil talisman and some dark rite, a bargain with a devil, the necrotic pillar the the PCs destroyed to defeat the undead menace... It needs explaining. Word. [/QUOTE]

Verification