Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 8187046" data-attributes="member: 6696971">Just going to lead with "this is all so odd" (that we aren't in agreement on this).[USER=6801286]@Imaculata[/USER] et al.  I'm just going to pour out a bunch of stuff and you can respond as you'd like to it.1)  I invoked "gatekeeping" in this conversation not in any way that relates to the question we're entertaining here.  I did it as an ironic aside (because some folks were all about gatekeeping in the past...pedal to proverbial floor...but are seemingly "anti-gatekeeping" now.  Its interesting...).  I do NOT think that the practice of game designers embedding skilled play at the build stage of their games (whether you're building a deck or a character) is in any way, shape, or form "cultural gatekeeping" (as used in common parlance). I mean, if that constitutes gatekeeping, then any game or activity that distills skill (and thereby rewards "system mastery" and stratifies play and players by it) would have to fall under the umbrella of gatekeeping.  If that applies, then abolish the word from gaming lexicon because it holds no useful information.2)  How can someone take all of the following things together and draw the conclusions you are drawing(?):<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">build choices were designed to be deliberately better and worse than others.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">"good" and "poor" choices exist.  They were encoded into the game.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">their purpose is to reward system mastery.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">because of this we were vigilant to not design away these disparities (4e, as we know, did).</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">players figure out the encoded disparities and are rewarded.</li> </ul>3)  An unparalleled (to that point), robust CharOp community accreted around 3e just like it did MtG.  See (2) above for why.  This CharOp community uses the same lexicon that MtG Op community does/did.4)  The development of a robust Class Tier system was an emergent property of all of the above.5)  The game is extraordinarily sensitive to intraparty imbalance and party : obstacle imbalance.  The only "solve" for this is a progressive regime of heavy GM curation of content and/or heavy application of GM Force.6)  The last game I ran in 3.x started at level 4 and ended at level 20.  This was 2006 when it ended.  There were multiple other characters that did not survive contact with the enemy, but the 3 that survived that 16 level span was:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Shapeshifting "Ursine Swarm" Druid.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">A mega-fragile, Skill-Monkey mega-Nova/Shadow-jumping Rogue.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">A F/M/Bladesinger that could out-duel anyone and trivially and routinely get its AC to gajillion along with other defensive measures.</li> </ul>At around level 11, the sensitivity to conflict type and system maths/CR became so pronounced (due to the 3 PCs' extreme numerical disparities, Class disparity, and build choice disparities) that without the most significant GM Curation of content possible, it would lead to extreme formulaic, niche playbook response by the PCs as one could imagine.  The homogeneity of the flow-chart (and the homogeneity of the outcomes) was an arms race that I spent endless mental overhead on.  Overwhelmingly, the Druid and Rogue solved all obstacles/conflicts.  In order to make the Bladesinger relevant, it would have to be one of two things: Knowledge (Arcana) gating a solve, a monster that couldn't be nova'd/swarmed and whose AC/To-Hit/Damage/Multi-attacking numbers were so extremely punishing for the Rogue/Druid that they dared not wade into melee combat.And this game didn't even involve a high level Wizard or Cleric by a player with significant system mastery (of which I ran games for those players...and the vanilla Toughness, Power-Attack maths-struggling player).[HR][/HR]So 2, 3, 4, and 5 you deny the reality of and you never experienced 6?</blockquote>

Verification