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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6005999" data-attributes="member: 996">There is nothing problematic about actual, overt, 'plot coupons,' like 'Fate Points' or similar, even more overtly 'author stance' mechanics in various storytelling games.  They are mechanics that can be balanced and playable.  Imbalance, OTOH, /is/ problematic, it creates a game in which 'legal,' even reasonable choices by one player can render the choices of other players - and thus their very participation in the game - moot.  Seems unlikely, since 4e had plenty of fans and was still out-selling Pathfinder prior to the Essentials debacle.  But, yes, those who rejected it, rejected it long before Essentials - often sight-unseen.  And Essentials, while addressing many of their /stated/ demands in no way apeased them.  It failed to bring them back, and drove away yet more existing fans.5e runs the same risk, if the designers listen to the hype, rather than looking deeper.I can't speculate as to the size, but every edition of D&D is still being played somewhere, by someone.  There's no 'right' or wrong in how much balance you like (or hate), but balance is something that, while perhaps hard to quantify in detail, is a real, objective thing.  Possibly true.  Balance, though, isn't just class-by-class, but an attribute of the whole game.  A balance game, with imbalanced add-ons, clearly labeled as such, should be workable as a modular approach to cater to both the balance-loving and balance-hating crowds.And nothing about the way the edition war progressed, nor the way discussions are going now gives them much of a clue.</blockquote>

Verification