Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8187287" data-attributes="member: 16814">This argument is very strange to me.&nbsp; I should be happy with my choice because I was better at intimidation than I was without it?&nbsp; This utterly ignores the fact that, without intending to, the bard managed to be significantly better at intimidation that I was with effort!&nbsp; This argument is attempting to isolate the choice of skill focus from the rest of the option set and from the other characters at the table, proclaim it good, and then plop it back in and ignore the rest.&nbsp;&nbsp; It's specious.And then the cooperative game canard.&nbsp; It's not a canard that the game is cooperative -- that's fine, but that the cooperative aspects mean I should be okay with using a build resource to attempt a character concept and then be fine when that build choice is overshadowed by other characters when they're not spending that resource or making an effort to excel in that conceptual space.&nbsp; I guess because it's cooperative and my character being worse at a core concept than the character that did it as an aside is fine because I can just stand back and let the other character do the thing better than me?&nbsp; Cooperation, right?&nbsp; Again, specious.These arguments are fragile things trying to paper over the clear issues that exist in 3.x character design.&nbsp; Issues that the designers openly admit to as intentional!&nbsp; The goalposts whipsaw between complaining about terminology to trying to handwave away the fact that there are poor choices in the character build subgame in 3.x.&nbsp; There's no attempt at honest criticism -- 3.x certainly wasn't a perfect game, but I loved it for what it was -- just attempts to defend it from criticism.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 8187287, member: 16814"] This argument is very strange to me. I should be happy with my choice because I was better at intimidation than I was without it? This utterly ignores the fact that, without intending to, the bard managed to be significantly better at intimidation that I was with effort! This argument is attempting to isolate the choice of skill focus from the rest of the option set and from the other characters at the table, proclaim it good, and then plop it back in and ignore the rest. It's specious. And then the cooperative game canard. It's not a canard that the game is cooperative -- that's fine, but that the cooperative aspects mean I should be okay with using a build resource to attempt a character concept and then be fine when that build choice is overshadowed by other characters when they're not spending that resource or making an effort to excel in that conceptual space. I guess because it's cooperative and my character being worse at a core concept than the character that did it as an aside is fine because I can just stand back and let the other character do the thing better than me? Cooperation, right? Again, specious. These arguments are fragile things trying to paper over the clear issues that exist in 3.x character design. Issues that the designers openly admit to as intentional! The goalposts whipsaw between complaining about terminology to trying to handwave away the fact that there are poor choices in the character build subgame in 3.x. There's no attempt at honest criticism -- 3.x certainly wasn't a perfect game, but I loved it for what it was -- just attempts to defend it from criticism. [/QUOTE]

Verification