Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Emerikol" data-source="post: 6005969" data-attributes="member: 6698278">I don't disagree that in your mind this is true.  I do not agree though that there is no game that could be designed that was not more than balanced for my purposes.  In fact 3e has issues but I could pick five classes (including the fighter) and stick with those and have a more than balanced enough game.I'm not against though striving for balance.  I'm against plot coupons.  I see 4e's plot coupons as more problematic than 3e's imbalance.  Doesn't mean I'm not sympathetic with you on imbalance.  It does mean that when the rubber hits the road I cannot tolerate plot coupons.  I can tolerate some imbalance by your measure of it.What I find humorous about this view is this idea that all of us loved every aspect of 3e and thus rebelled against 4e.  I agree that for some people the slaughtering of sacred cows made them angry and I can sympathize.  But for me the things 4e did rules-wise were a net negative.  For a variety of reasons.  And when I say net negative I'm talking about fun to play.I agree that a lot of 4e people don't mind the method so long as the goal is achieved.  It's the nature of their outlook on gaming.  They are narrativists generally (or lean that way).  But the method matters to me.  The way they accomplish things can be bad.  And in 4e's case it was.I think that honestly 4e was totally rejected by the time Essentials came out.  I didn't even know about Essentials until 5e.  Honestly.  Didn't even know it existed.  When I left 4e, I didn't look back.  Only the announcement of a completely new edition caught my attention.  So given 4e people liked 4e, I can see why they were not as fond of Essentials.  Thats your answer.You seem reasonable on the analysis of the market.  You also I'm sure agree that neither of us would change our minds about what we like if the sales figures change.  So it's not an argument as to what is better for us which is really all that matters.   But I'm really coming to think that Pathfinder does not represent the 3e market.  It represents only part of it.  There is a pretty big group of 3.5e players out there that never tried Pathfinder.I agree.  I think plot coupons are far more important to people embracing a game than my little voice represents.  I constantly get emails from people telling me they finally get why they don't like something.  They couldn't put their finger on why they just knew in their gut it wasn't right.  My enunciation of the plot coupon idea clarified why they disliked something.Well here is an example.  There is John's standard for balance and there is Tony's standard.  Let's ignore who is right for now.  Let's say they make twenty classes for 5e that meet my standard.  I have a standard but it's definitely less strict than yours.  Now assuming the archetypes are covered.  If fifteen of the classes of those twenty are balanced to your standard then we are fine.  Classes are modules and one group can ban the five that are problematic for them.  Whereas without those five in the form they are in, the first group might very well reject the game.I think modules are more important in this case than compromise.  I agree with you that why would I play a lukewarm game vs a hot one.  I am definitely not motivated at all to play the game currently being published.  I don't generally buy modules but if I do I can convert them to any edition easily.  So if 3e totally satisfied me I'd be there.  I don't need any future publications to be happy.  I'm just not 100% satisfied with 3e as is.  Nor Pathfinder.  But I am fast becoming convinced that 5e won't be for me.  I'm going to have to write my own.CS could easily be ok.  They just roll damage and then let you decide what you are going to do.  If they asked you to decide to use your die and then you rolled it would work.  So the overall concept is not bad.  Just the current implementation.I'm starting to believe the devs just don't get it.  If you don't learn from the past you are doomed going forward.  They need to know why certain mechanics were rejected.  So those types of structures are avoided while still achieving the goal.</blockquote>

Verification