Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Yaarel" data-source="post: 9252221" data-attributes="member: 58172">There is much about 1e that I like and appreciate. Much of its flavor is innovative, and its formative structures historically interesting.One of the reasons I dont normally 1e (or 2e) (or even 3e), is because of the inequity of power.In 1e, a player rolls 3d6 strictly randomly without mitigation. In the 1e campaign that I played that is how the group did it. I find this absurd. A character that rolls straight 18s, virtually close enough to it for the top three abilities, breaks the game. The player that rolls all 3s or whatever subpar, has a piss-poor time for the rest of the campaign − except for the &quot;custom&quot; of intentionally getting such low rollers killed to reroll a new character.Consider the 1e Magic-User. It is broken at low levels because it is underpowered, painfully sucks, and is unfun. Then at high levels it is broken because it is overpowered, painfully sucks for all the other players at the table, and is unfun. The game engine itself is unsustainable at high levels because of these wonky imbalances. To be fair, 1e preexists the concept of a &quot;game engine&quot; or any formal understanding how an ecology of gaming mechanics functions. It was all adhoc guesswork. Formative.What is the point of breaking the game on purpose? Ridiculous.3e is problematic similarly. The game offered overpowered features, such as via Prestige Classes, but had as prereqs investment in underpowered features. It was a process of &quot;hazing&quot;. Suck at low levels because of worthless features, then after the hazing ritual, make the game suck for everyone else at high levels.This imbalance is unappealing. Almost an abusive power dynamic and exploitative.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Yaarel, post: 9252221, member: 58172"] There is much about 1e that I like and appreciate. Much of its flavor is innovative, and its formative structures historically interesting. One of the reasons I dont normally 1e (or 2e) (or even 3e), is because of the inequity of power. In 1e, a player rolls 3d6 strictly randomly without mitigation. In the 1e campaign that I played that is how the group did it. I find this absurd. A character that rolls straight 18s, virtually close enough to it for the top three abilities, breaks the game. The player that rolls all 3s or whatever subpar, has a piss-poor time for the rest of the campaign − except for the "custom" of intentionally getting such low rollers killed to reroll a new character. Consider the 1e Magic-User. It is broken at low levels because it is underpowered, painfully sucks, and is unfun. Then at high levels it is broken because it is overpowered, painfully sucks for all the other players at the table, and is unfun. The game engine itself is unsustainable at high levels because of these wonky imbalances. To be fair, 1e preexists the concept of a "game engine" or any formal understanding how an ecology of gaming mechanics functions. It was all adhoc guesswork. Formative. What is the point of breaking the game on purpose? Ridiculous. 3e is problematic similarly. The game offered overpowered features, such as via Prestige Classes, but had as prereqs investment in underpowered features. It was a process of "hazing". Suck at low levels because of worthless features, then after the hazing ritual, make the game suck for everyone else at high levels. This imbalance is unappealing. Almost an abusive power dynamic and exploitative. [/QUOTE]

Verification