Community

Feb 23, 2012 -- 2:38PM, Grand_Theft_Otto wrote:

Feb 23, 2012 -- 11:37AM, Emerikol wrote:

Feb 23, 2012 -- 11:28AM, erachima wrote:

ShinQuickMan: I don't want a debate over whether Hobbes is right, I want a debate over how we, being reasonable adults rather than playground bullies, are going to make the game be 1. balanced and 2. support as many people's fun as possible while remaining balanced.

Easy enough.

Feb 23, 2012 -- 11:11AM, Matt_Sheridan wrote:

When those arguments are literally for realism over awesomeness, then I start to think that someone must hate fun.

...Of course, when you look a little closer, these folks' anti-awesomeness arguements rarely threaten their own fun.

Nailed it.

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.
Go check out Pathfinder groups.  They got plenty of fighters players.  If what you said was true, all the fighter players would have flocked to 4e and the casters would be the only ones left in Pathfinder.

There are lots of people who remain in abusive relationships as well. Doesnt make them good ones... 

I disagree with you and I have never played a caster in a campaign.  
So enough with this completely false and fallacious snark commentary about casters wanting to lord it over everybody.  We disagree on what we like.  None of use are immoral or evil because of it.

 

For a guy who beats the "casters need to be uber" drum a lot, I find this suspect.

It has nothing to do with 'abusive relationships', it just has to do with other things being important besides your favorite class being competitive with the other classes. You only need to want to play a good fighter less than you want to play the bad one so you can play with your friends, etc. There are all kinds of these reasons. You can overall like one game more than another but still favor some things in the game you aren't playing.

The only way to find out is to ask people, and we don't have that information. So I'm as free to claim that the vast majority of the people who love to play fighters would love to play 4e style fighters vs 3e style ones. Neither of us can be said to be any more right than the other on that.

I think it is pretty telling that everything Pathfinder changed it made MORE like 4e than it was in 3e. I'd take that as pretty good evidence that the things 4e did are pretty general desires amongst a pretty big segment of the community. 5e is welcome to do some of those things differently, but surely we can have a core system that starts out balanced (and probably really simple) and allows for other options that make it more complex, less balanced, etc (however people want to think of the options).

I still have a reasonable issue though, and that's that it seems inevitable that WotC will have to pick favorites. Some set of options will be the baseline assumption for every adventure, every other module, etc. The people who design the game have their biases and they'll decide what to throw hours behind supporting. People will then play that because it has more support and they'll have little reason to devote their precious developer hours to other options which then become less and less supported. I need at least the baseline of things kinda baked in. Otherwise either I don't really get what I want, or you don't get what you want, so where are we? I guess at minimal baseline effectiveness for all PCs as a default with almost no choices.

Honestly the power system WAS the logical way out of imbalance.