Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 4867078" data-attributes="member: 18280">(1)&nbsp; It is untrue that you never miss at all.&nbsp; Even the greatest fighter in the world has a 5% chance of missing (natural &quot;1&quot;).&nbsp; However, that doesn't relate to Armour Class, so we move on.(2)&nbsp; The point is both that the name level character is objectively better than Mr. Newbie, and that the play experience has changed.&nbsp; This is something, IMHO, that WotC has failed to grasp about the original game.&nbsp; When the numbers keep cranking up, but the odds remain exactly the same, the play experience also remains roughly the same while the work to get there increases exponentially.&nbsp; When one talks about a &quot;sweet spot&quot; in TSR-D&amp;D, one is generally talking about a particular play experience one enjoys.....when a character can do X pretty easily, but still cannot do Y.&nbsp; WotC twigged to that, and tried to make every level conform to the general consensus &quot;sweet spot&quot;.&nbsp; But they tried also to make it seem as though characters were rapidly progressing at the same time (another thing from their market research).&nbsp; The result is that, in WotC-D&amp;D, when one talks about a &quot;sweet spot&quot;, one is often referring to the complexity of the math, and how that affects speed of play.There are (IMHO) a lot of good things about WotC-D&amp;D, both 3e and 4e.&nbsp; Especially, I enjoyed the lively debate that WotC's analysis of 3e problems, and proposed 4e fixes, sparked.&nbsp; There are certainly a lot of lessons learned there which have made my gaming better.&nbsp; Certainly, those discussions prompted RCFG, and I didn't throw away all of WotC-D&amp;D's ideas.&nbsp; Many of them are too good to throw out.But at the same time, it became very clear to me that 3e stepped away from using a linear scale of measurment for character/creature/world features, and (IMHO) nearly all of the problems I've encountered with WotC-D&amp;D stem from that decision, either directly or indirectly.Coupling ideas from the 3.x SRD with a linear scale of measurment has created the best play experience I have ever had.&nbsp; I rather wish that WotC had done the same with 4e, which would have allowed (IMHO &amp; IME) many of the same benefits 4e has over 3e without the same numbers creep, and without the same wonky disconnect between rules and common sense.YMMV.RC</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Raven Crowking, post: 4867078, member: 18280"] (1) It is untrue that you never miss at all. Even the greatest fighter in the world has a 5% chance of missing (natural "1"). However, that doesn't relate to Armour Class, so we move on. (2) The point is both that the name level character is objectively better than Mr. Newbie, and that the play experience has changed. This is something, IMHO, that WotC has failed to grasp about the original game. When the numbers keep cranking up, but the odds remain exactly the same, the play experience also remains roughly the same while the work to get there increases exponentially. When one talks about a "sweet spot" in TSR-D&D, one is generally talking about a particular play experience one enjoys.....when a character can do X pretty easily, but still cannot do Y. WotC twigged to that, and tried to make every level conform to the general consensus "sweet spot". But they tried also to make it seem as though characters were rapidly progressing at the same time (another thing from their market research). The result is that, in WotC-D&D, when one talks about a "sweet spot", one is often referring to the complexity of the math, and how that affects speed of play. There are (IMHO) a lot of good things about WotC-D&D, both 3e and 4e. Especially, I enjoyed the lively debate that WotC's analysis of 3e problems, and proposed 4e fixes, sparked. There are certainly a lot of lessons learned there which have made my gaming better. Certainly, those discussions prompted RCFG, and I didn't throw away all of WotC-D&D's ideas. Many of them are too good to throw out. But at the same time, it became very clear to me that 3e stepped away from using a linear scale of measurment for character/creature/world features, and (IMHO) nearly all of the problems I've encountered with WotC-D&D stem from that decision, either directly or indirectly. Coupling ideas from the 3.x SRD with a linear scale of measurment has created the best play experience I have ever had. I rather wish that WotC had done the same with 4e, which would have allowed (IMHO & IME) many of the same benefits 4e has over 3e without the same numbers creep, and without the same wonky disconnect between rules and common sense. YMMV. RC [/QUOTE]

Verification