More importantly, if it were a matter of playstyle, my favorite games wouldn't be 4e, GURPS, The One Ring and Old School Hack.
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
@Garthanos, Kalnaur, DoctorBadWolf, and Leichenreiter: I think we just have different play styles. That's cool. If you think 4e is the most awesome thing ever, that's sweet. It 'was' technically a masterpiece of combat rules and such. Very balanced. I can really appreciate some of the nifty innovations in the game.
Okay, here's the 'however'. I just happen to have a slightly different play style (I think). I'm not saying mine is better, in fact, yours probably is. It sounds like you love the game for what it is, and I think that's epic. I like my games for the 'story'. Maybe I'm weird and crazy and the only person on earth who thinks that. However, if WotC 'is' looking for the advice of players such as myself, it's just to please include the 'story' elements for those of us who really do play the game for those elements.
I'd even be happy with two versions of 5e. One for those who like the 'crunchy' stuff and one for the 'insane storyteller whackos' (me). If that's not an option, I'll gracefully accept it. WotC will do what they must do. There will be many, many people happy with the new edition. I hope I'm one of them. If I'm not, I'll just keep playing the way I enjoy (maybe keep working on my own RPG, Challenger, which is free) and then we can all have fun gaming the way we want to. What's better than that?
I enjoy the balance of 4e because it makes the storytelling easier and more satisfying for me and my group, and allows for more varied and unique characters than any previous edition, yet doesn't require nearly as much work on the DM's part to keep everyting in line.
I'm not sure it's a matter of playstyle.
Yes, it is. I, who care littlle about combat and nothing about balance, feel much more free in storytelling in a game that is not obsessed with balance. I just can do what I want. All I need to do is to agree with my players if I'm the master, or with master and players if I'm a player, to see what kind of adventur is going to be. Mor combat centered? Then I'll have an optimized character. Is the adventure more focused on storytelling? I'll take my cool bard, or some other pg I love, care little about all the balance and character optimization stuff, maybe even play a under par character, but I'll have even more fun. As a dm, I just do not care what sort of pg I have. They are not optimized? I'll go with the story. They are all powerfull? I'll go with the story and I'll be an evil dm. Some are optimized and some not? Than I have no problem, I'll trhow in whatever I feel like and try not to hit too much the unoptimized one. I once played an unoptimized bard in a team with overpowered character. Did it harm my fun? Not at all. Sure, I was useless in fighting, but it became the funny, ridiculos moment, when I laughed all the time. So yes, it is a matter of playstyle.
Absolutely!
I played in a group where one player actually demanded another player changed characters because they felt the group was suffering. No one else had a problem, they just accepted the character the player wanted. This particular sod was adamant. Eventually the group brought him around to cease his whining.
I had the exact opposite experience. I had two players one was a Half-Orc Barbarian and the other was a Halfling rogue. The Barbarian would rush up and kill the mobs with one hit. The rogue every once in a while got a chance to deal some damage and take out some enemies.
Our last play session ended when the Rogue rage quit because he couldn't get to the boss monster before the Barbarian (who killed it with 1 hit, due to a crit).
So having imbalanced characters does ruin the game for some people...
@Garthanos, Kalnaur, DoctorBadWolf, and Leichenreiter: I think we just have different play styles. That's cool. If you think 4e is the most awesome thing ever, that's sweet. It 'was' technically a masterpiece of combat rules and such. Very balanced. I can really appreciate some of the nifty innovations in the game.
Okay, here's the 'however'. I just happen to have a slightly different play style (I think). I'm not saying mine is better, in fact, yours probably is. It sounds like you love the game for what it is, and I think that's epic. I like my games for the 'story'. Maybe I'm weird and crazy and the only person on earth who thinks that. However, if WotC 'is' looking for the advice of players such as myself, it's just to please include the 'story' elements for those of us who really do play the game for those elements.
I'd even be happy with two versions of 5e. One for those who like the 'crunchy' stuff and one for the 'insane storyteller whackos' (me). If that's not an option, I'll gracefully accept it. WotC will do what they must do. There will be many, many people happy with the new edition. I hope I'm one of them. If I'm not, I'll just keep playing the way I enjoy (maybe keep working on my own RPG, Challenger, which is free) and then we can all have fun gaming the way we want to. What's better than that?
I enjoy the balance of 4e because it makes the storytelling easier and more satisfying for me and my group, and allows for more varied and unique characters than any previous edition, yet doesn't require nearly as much work on the DM's part to keep everyting in line.
I'm not sure it's a matter of playstyle.
Yes, it is. I, who care littlle about combat and nothing about balance, feel much more free in storytelling in a game that is not obsessed with balance. I just can do what I want. All I need to do is to agree with my players if I'm the master, or with master and players if I'm a player, to see what kind of adventur is going to be. Mor combat centered? Then I'll have an optimized character. Is the adventure more focused on storytelling? I'll take my cool bard, or some other pg I love, care little about all the balance and character optimization stuff, maybe even play a under par character, but I'll have even more fun. As a dm, I just do not care what sort of pg I have. They are not optimized? I'll go with the story. They are all powerfull? I'll go with the story and I'll be an evil dm. Some are optimized and some not? Than I have no problem, I'll trhow in whatever I feel like and try not to hit too much the unoptimized one. I once played an unoptimized bard in a team with overpowered character. Did it harm my fun? Not at all. Sure, I was useless in fighting, but it became the funny, ridiculos moment, when I laughed all the time. So yes, it is a matter of playstyle.
Absolutely!
I played in a group where one player actually demanded another player changed characters because they felt the group was suffering. No one else had a problem, they just accepted the character the player wanted. This particular sod was adamant. Eventually the group brought him around to cease his whining.
I had the exact opposite experience. I had two players one was a Half-Orc Barbarian and the other was a Halfling rogue. The Barbarian would rush up and kill the mobs with one hit. The rogue every once in a while got a chance to deal some damage and take out some enemies.
Our last play session ended when the Rogue rage quit because he couldn't get to the boss monster before the Barbarian (who killed it with 1 hit, due to a crit).
So having imbalanced characters does ruin the game for some people...
I can't say I am sympathetic to the rogue character. Again, rage quit because the barbarian did better? Ok. Spare me the drama.
Sorry that just sounds well like whining. Maybe the other character PLAYED better?
Group was probably better off without him. I don't know the situation, but it sounds more like an optimizer stealing the fun more than a balance issue. I play D&D with high school kids and they act better than that.
CAMRA preserves and protects real ale from the homogenization of modern beer production.
I can't say I am sympathetic to the rogue character. Again, rage quit because the barbarian did better? Ok. Go find another DM maybe you will have fun. Spare me the drama.
Sorry that just sounds well like whining. Maybe the other character PLAYED better?
Group was probably better off without him. I don't know the situation, but it sounds more like an optimizer stealing the fun more than a balance issue. I play D&D with high school kids and they act better than that.
Wow, that was the longest rambling or incoherent ad hoc justifications I have ever seen. breaking it down, you asserted...
The rogue's player is just a whiner
The barbarian's player is a better player
The barbarian's player is an optimizing fun-stealer
All the while admitting you "dont' know the situation". But nowhere in there would you concede the possibility that the game rules may have played a factor?
One guy wants to play a rogue. His conception of the rogus is someone who sneaks up to people and delivers devastating sneak attacks. His buddy wants to play a barbarian. his conception of the character is someone who, in a rage, charges the enemy. Both of these should be viable characters in the game, right?
So, maybe, if the game isn't working the way it should, it might be the game's fault? Can you concede that as a possibility? Can you concede the rogue may not be a whiner, the barbarian may not be an optimizer?
The solution, without changing games, seems to be either the rogue shouldn't play the prrfectly reasonable character he wants or the barbarian shouldn't play the perfectly reasonable character he wants. That doesn't sound like a reasonable result to me.
All this "blame the player" garbage has to stop. As long as the players want to play concepts that are not disruptive or inherently breaking (i.e., I want to play a god) and are consistewnt with fantasy tropes, the game should be able to accommodate them.
If it fails to do that, then the game is at fault, not the player.
I can't say I am sympathetic to the rogue character. Again, rage quit because the barbarian did better? Ok. Go find another DM maybe you will have fun. Spare me the drama.
Sorry that just sounds well like whining. Maybe the other character PLAYED better?
Group was probably better off without him. I don't know the situation, but it sounds more like an optimizer stealing the fun more than a balance issue. I play D&D with high school kids and they act better than that.
Wow, that was the longest rambling or incoherent ad hoc justifications I have ever seen. breaking it down, you asserted...
The rogue's player is just a whiner
The barbarian's player is a better player
The barbarian's player is an optimizing fun-stealer
All the while admitting you "dont' know the situation". But nowhere in there would you concede the possibility that the game rules may have played a factor?
One guy wants to play a rogue. His conception of the rogus is someone who sneaks up to people and delivers devastating sneak attacks. His buddy wants to play a barbarian. his conception of the character is someone who, in a rage, charges the enemy. Both of these should be viable characters in the game, right?
So, maybe, if the game isn't working the way it should, it might be the game's fault? Can you concede that as a possibility? Can you concede the rogue may not be a whiner, the barbarian may not be an optimizer?
The solution, without changing games, seems to be either the rogue shouldn't play the prrfectly reasonable character he wants or the barbarian shouldn't play the perfectly reasonable character he wants. That doesn't sound like a reasonable result to me.
All this "blame the player" garbage has to stop. As long as the players want to play concepts that are not disruptive or inherently breaking (i.e., I want to play a god) and are consistewnt with fantasy tropes, the game should be able to accommodate them.
If it fails to do that, then the game is at fault, not the player.
All the while admiting I don't know the situation because I dont. Whats wrong with that. I will give my evaluation on what I am given.
No sorry. Rage quit sounds like player fault to me. Perhaps it comes from the lessons of sportsmanship.
I concede the possibility of rules.
I think it more LIKELY a personality problem than a rules problem. Yes. I concede it could be a rules problem. It could also be a problem with the heat in the play room. Should I make a list of every possibility now in a response?
I think it more LIKELY a personality problem than a rules problem. Yes. I concede it could be a rules problem. It could also be a problem with the heat in the play room. Should I make a list of every possibility now in a response?
Since the person to whome you were responded posited it as a rules proble,, yes , that should have been mentioned in your post if you considered it a possibility. That would have been the respectful thing to do in a conversation -- acknowledging what the guy to whom you are responding actually wrote.
Because otherwise, all you actually did was insult each of the players and the DM involved, and then, in a supreme bit of irony, invoked sportsmanship and mutual respect. Well, right back atcha, buddy.
1.) Agree that play style is a important factor; imbalance certainly may cause an issue for some but not for others.
However: 2.) Imbalance definitely does cause problems, at least for some. People should have the freedom to play in a group where different classes have similar overall power levels at the same level. Balancing doesn't remove the freedom to play in a colorful, varied world or to tell stories - even stories involving competent and incompetent characters traveling and adventuring together. But it gives freedom (for those who want it) to have characters be very different thematically and yet still equal in level.
I think it more LIKELY a personality problem than a rules problem. Yes. I concede it could be a rules problem. It could also be a problem with the heat in the play room. Should I make a list of every possibility now in a response?
Since the person to whome you were responded posited it as a rules proble,, yes , that should have been mentioned in your post if you considered it a possibility. That would have been the respectful thing to do in a conversation -- acknowledging what the guy to whom you are responding actually wrote.
Because otherwise, all you actually did was insult each of the players and the DM involved, and then, in a supreme bit of irony, invoked sportsmanship and mutual respect. Well, right back atcha, buddy.
By stating "I don't know the situation", that is a tag to indicate I am not actually asserting anything. I am evaluating on the limited information at hand, so the lecture does not quite apply here.
I edited my post about what I wrote about go find another DM. I meant it from MY perspective, If I was thier DM. I see how the person I quoted could think I was saying they were a bad DM.
That was not my intention. I apologize and so I took that bit out.
I still do not have sympathy for rage quit players, though I've met most of them in Live Action Roleplay more so than the Table top social situation.
There will often be times where one player outshines another. I have been outdone many times.
There can also be no doubt some players do not work for some groups. Some DM's do not work for some groups. That's just the way it goes.
CAMRA preserves and protects real ale from the homogenization of modern beer production.
I can't say I am sympathetic to the rogue character. Again, rage quit because the barbarian did better? Ok. Go find another DM maybe you will have fun. Spare me the drama.
Sorry that just sounds well like whining. Maybe the other character PLAYED better?
Group was probably better off without him. I don't know the situation, but it sounds more like an optimizer stealing the fun more than a balance issue. I play D&D with high school kids and they act better than that.
Wow, that was the longest rambling or incoherent ad hoc justifications I have ever seen. breaking it down, you asserted...
The rogue's player is just a whiner
The barbarian's player is a better player
The barbarian's player is an optimizing fun-stealer
All the while admitting you "dont' know the situation". But nowhere in there would you concede the possibility that the game rules may have played a factor?
One guy wants to play a rogue. His conception of the rogus is someone who sneaks up to people and delivers devastating sneak attacks. His buddy wants to play a barbarian. his conception of the character is someone who, in a rage, charges the enemy. Both of these should be viable characters in the game, right?
So, maybe, if the game isn't working the way it should, it might be the game's fault? Can you concede that as a possibility? Can you concede the rogue may not be a whiner, the barbarian may not be an optimizer?
The solution, without changing games, seems to be either the rogue shouldn't play the prrfectly reasonable character he wants or the barbarian shouldn't play the perfectly reasonable character he wants. That doesn't sound like a reasonable result to me.
All this "blame the player" garbage has to stop. As long as the players want to play concepts that are not disruptive or inherently breaking (i.e., I want to play a god) and are consistewnt with fantasy tropes, the game should be able to accommodate them.
If it fails to do that, then the game is at fault, not the player.
This. Bravo.
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
The problem is when one character outshines another(possibly multiple other) characters so many times and by such an obnoxious degree where playing any class but the one outshining you so abdly is more of a strain on party resources than anything else(because since he's doing everythign much better and efficiently, there is no reason to not play as it, not playing as it is just gimping yourself).
