Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 7072413" data-attributes="member: 22779">[MENTION=284]Caliban[/MENTION] - all I can say is, you're reading WAYYY too much into this.  I've explained my point in more detail a couple of posts ago.  You seem to have jumped into the tail end of another conversation and are apparently missing come context.  Mostly about the idea that point buy automatically leads to min maxing characters while die rolling is for "true" role-players.But, yup, I would have a field day if you came to my table with 3 sixteens and 3 eights.  Totally.  You wouldn't?  Really?  A character like that has GIGANTIC flaws.  THREE dump stats?  That's just painting a giant target on your character.  That character is going to fail about 2/3rds of the scenarios you put in front of the player.  Fantastic.  Failure is just as much fun as success.But, in the context of min maxing, coming to the table with giant, gaping flaws and then expecting the DM to never actually challenge your character and only design scenarios that play to your strengths sounds like a massive dose of player entitlement to me.  Are you honestly advocating that a DM should only play to a character's strengths?  That when a character hits the table with obvious flaws, we should completely avoid doing anything to challenge or bring those flaws into play?I don't think that's what you're advocating, but, since you've taken such a bizarre twist on what I said, I'm having a bit of a time trying to figure out what your position actually is.In the notion of clarity, let me be absolutely clear about my position:1.  I DO NOT specifically design campaigns or scenarios with specific PC's in mind.  I design scenarios and camapaigns that try to challenge a notional group (that only exists in my head at the time I'm writing adventures) in all three pillars as equally as I can.  IOW, a Hussar Adventure will likely feature equal (ish) time and rewards devoted to exploration, combat and talky bits.  ((Although, to my eternal shame, they do tend to feature a bit more hack than talk :/ ))2.  Because of this, any character that gets brought to the table, is expected to be able to operate in all three pillars to some degree.  It is totally reasonable to expect that your character, in any given scenario will have to fight, talk and explore in fairly equal degrees.3.  I DO NOT police my players.  They are perfectly free to bring whatever they like to the table (within the bounds of the campaign of course).  I actually go out of my way to enable options when I can.  I have no problems with 3pp and what have you.  I mean, in my current campaign, we're using Primeval Thule (a 3pp setting), and 3 of the 6 characters don't appear in the PHB - 2 UA rangers and, a Witch Hunter - so, yeah, I'm pretty easy going.What this results in though, is a campaign which is not tailored to specific PC's.  Which means if you hyper specialize, it's quite likely going to bite you on the ass.  Sure, you'll be absolutely fantastic in your specialization.  Great.  Welcome to it.  But, when we move to another pillar, it's quite likely that that same specialization will hurt.  Dump stat Str?  Ok, fine, but, when it comes time to explore, it's going to be a much bigger challenge.  Same with any dump stat.  To me, building a balanced campaign that features all three pillars is the mark of a good DM.  But, doing so means that specialists are going to have a harder time.  Just the nature of the beast.</blockquote>

Verification