Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Guest&nbsp; 85555" data-source="post: 6249099">I do not believe this is what is behind my dislike of the pillar parity (though I do also somewhat happen to agree with the sentiment expressed). A lot of it also has to do with our assumptions of lay and fun. I believe shidaku sees fun as being linked to the player's ability to meaningfully contribute to every challenge, whereas i see that as missing an opportunity for fun and greater depth of interaction with the setting. I welcome challenges that could be harder or easier depending on the exact make up of the party, and I like having areas I don't shine in because I honestly find it boring if I just happen to be good at combat, social interaction, finding traps, etc. I am much more interested in balance over the campaign, than around every challenge. To me that is more organic, keads to more surprises and is just more enjoyable. I think ot is fine if someone doesn't agree, but to me this feels like the principle 4E tried to apply to combat, but takes it to all other aspects of play as well. I just don't enjoy that kind of design. It simply isn't for me. And to be frank, I find it frustrating that, when one expresses that preference, there is a demand for proof or an explaination for why it isn't bad design.</blockquote>