Why the claim of combat balance between the classes is mainly a forum issue. (In my opinion)

First of all, I'm not talking about broken mechanics. I'm talking about the myth that a lot of people somehow want all classes to be balanced when it comes to combat and damage.

 

Now what I am about to post is from my own experience and the experiences of those I have gamed with for many years. I have been playing RPG's for over 27 years now. I am actively engaged in Pathfinder Society and with various Cons. In all my years, I have yet to come across a player, except on internet forums, who wants this so called balance that 4th edition gave us. The people that I have gamed with do not care about DPR, nor do they measure contributing to the game with numbers. These people aren't worried about choosing that right stat line up, or that race class combo, or even that special selection of certain feats that synergize perfectly. They are also not the people who want all their abilities to equally work at optimal efficiency against everything.

 

These people choose classes based on a concept they have so they will choose those feats that people on these forums discourage against taking because they aren't optimal numerically. These same people don't mind when the barbarian does 56 points of damage while the rogue does 25 because they aren't in a hurry to win combat nor do they mind if the barbarian does a lot more damage.

 

This is how I feel about the game. Concept is what's important to me and sometimes my concept is based around combat and sometimes it's not. I have found that a heavy emphasis on balanced combat leads to option bloat. This attitude promotes the selection of feats and backgrounds that only grant a numerical combat advantage, so what we get is loads of feats and backgrounds that are considered sub-optimal and are therefore discouraged.

 

From my own experience, the balance issue is not an actual issue at all. I'm sure your miles may vary, and it may be an issue for you but it's not for me and the many people that I deal with.

XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:

First of all, I'm not talking about broken mechanics. I'm talking about the myth that a lot of people somehow want all classes to be balanced when it comes to combat and damage.

 

Now what I am about to post is from my own experience and the experiences of those I have gamed with for many years. I have been playing RPG's for over 27 years now. I am actively engaged in Pathfinder Society and with various Cons. In all my years, I have yet to come across a player, except on internet forums, who wants this so called balance that 4th edition gave us. The people that I have gamed with do not care about DPR, nor do they measure contributing to the game with numbers. These people aren't worried about choosing that right stat line up, or that race class combo, or even that special selection of certain feats that synergize perfectly. They are also not the people who want all their abilities to equally work at optimal efficiency against everything.

 

These people choose classes based on a concept they have so they will choose those feats that people on these forums discourage against taking because they aren't optimal numerically. These same people don't mind when the barbarian does 56 points of damage while the rogue does 25 because they aren't in a hurry to win combat nor do they mind if the barbarian does a lot more damage.

 

This is how I feel about the game. Concept is what's important to me and sometimes my concept is based around combat and sometimes it's not. I have found that a heavy emphasis on balanced combat leads to option bloat. This attitude promotes the selection of feats and backgrounds that only grant a numerical combat advantage, so what we get is loads of feats and backgrounds that are considered sub-optimal and are therefore discouraged.

 

From my own experience, the balance issue is not an actual issue at all. I'm sure your miles may vary, and it may be an issue for you but it's not for me and the many people that I deal with.

 

Then you shouldn't speak for other people. Your experience is just your experience.

 

...whatever

thecasualoblivion wrote:

Then you shouldn't speak for other people. Your experience is just your experience.

 

I don't see any liberties taken by the OP that he's speaking for you, us, myself, everyone, all.

 

I just said something and you just read it. Sorry about that.

kill_the_wiz_first wrote:

 

thecasualoblivion wrote:

Then you shouldn't speak for other people. Your experience is just your experience.

 

 

I don't see any liberties taken by the OP that he's speaking for you, us, myself, everyone, all.

The title...
...whatever

So much sensitivity here. Heck, I just got a post deleted because I didn't like a movie.

 

I just said something and you just read it. Sorry about that.

kill_the_wiz_first wrote:

So much sensitivity here. Heck, I just got a post deleted because I didn't like a movie.

He's trying to claim that a widely held opinion of an established section of the D&D community doesn't exist in real life, only on forums, just because he in his oh so limited experience claims to have never seen it. Screw that.
...whatever

Ok, I am going to put this simply...

 

 

@XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek  You have a great username, and I also agree with you completely. 100%. Good man for posting this.

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/20.jpg)

 My Psion for Next

Updated 31/4/14

 

This will sound very contrived and self-serving, but I spent a lot of time designing this class - so it Psionics is your thing, please give it a quick read and your two cents.

Cheers.

I can factually note that in our group (late 70's to mid 90's to a smattering of sessions from there to now) that balance never played any role in any players perspective at any time. Aside from the theif stealing our stuff. ~laughs~

 

I agree with the OP. I factually believe this is my opinion.

 

I just said something and you just read it. Sorry about that.

There is no doubt the OP did nothing wrong, and his opinion is well reasoned and just.  In my opinion, everyone should be taking a look at this because it illuminates the possibility that many people on these forums are making up their concerns in attempts to do damage.

 

I would urge the designers to try harder to strain out any of the bad posts, so they can still take feedback here at all and don't have to turn a blind eye to every one of us because of a few.

My experience is that D&D is 'balanced' when everyone is having fun.  This might mean  the fighter hits the hardest, or that the thief is the sneakiest.  Or, it could mean the fella playing the fighter is happy imagining his PC as some knight in shining armor (doesn't matter how hard he actually hits as long as he looks  good doin' it ).

 

The trick I believe is knowing your players.  A player who enjoys killing mosters and taking their stuff is prolly happiest with a magical sword of some kind. On the other hand, if she's the kind who enjoys following the lore of a setting, then a conversation (rather than a fight) might be the best approach.  Our games are most fun when I have a handle on what motivates the other players.

 

So in my mind, 'balance' simply means fun.  It wouldn't mean the same thing to an actual game designer though.  I think combmat and damage (and balance) are popular topics on the boards because they can be examined and discussed objectively.  Wrong fun is a bit trickier to discuss  .

 

    

/\ Art

XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:

First of all, I'm not talking about broken mechanics. I'm talking about the myth that a lot of people somehow want all classes to be balanced when it comes to combat and damage.

 

Now what I am about to post is from my own experience and the experiences of those I have gamed with for many years. I have been playing RPG's for over 27 years now. I am actively engaged in Pathfinder Society and with various Cons. In all my years, I have yet to come across a player, except on internet forums, who wants this so called balance that 4th edition gave us. The people that I have gamed with do not care about DPR, nor do they measure contributing to the game with numbers. These people aren't worried about choosing that right stat line up, or that race class combo, or even that special selection of certain feats that synergize perfectly. They are also not the people who want all their abilities to equally work at optimal efficiency against everything.

 

These people choose classes based on a concept they have so they will choose those feats that people on these forums discourage against taking because they aren't optimal numerically. These same people don't mind when the barbarian does 56 points of damage while the rogue does 25 because they aren't in a hurry to win combat nor do they mind if the barbarian does a lot more damage.

 

This is how I feel about the game. Concept is what's important to me and sometimes my concept is based around combat and sometimes it's not. I have found that a heavy emphasis on balanced combat leads to option bloat. This attitude promotes the selection of feats and backgrounds that only grant a numerical combat advantage, so what we get is loads of feats and backgrounds that are considered sub-optimal and are therefore discouraged.

 

From my own experience, the balance issue is not an actual issue at all. I'm sure your miles may vary, and it may be an issue for you but it's not for me and the many people that I deal with.

 

Agreed, 100%, with the following caveat (or point, depending on how you look at it):

 

Balance is for white room scenarios, where the environment is bland, featureless, and basically equitable. Once one gets into an actual game situation, "balance" begins to become very relative and is nowhere near absolute. Different situations require different skills/powers/abilities/whatever, so in one scenario or situation, one particular item becomes "broken," while another one becomes "unusable." In a different situation, that could be reversed. Also, a creative player can use even seemingly "useless" things in an inventive and highly useful way.

 

I once not too long ago brought up an anecdote about my Bard in a Pathfinder game I was in, and one of the "DPR is king" folks told me my character was useless because he wasn't dealing damage every round - or in some cases, any round. I shared this story with that group. After roughly five minutes of raucous laughter, we actually discussed the situation and why that assertion was entirely incorrect.

For those confused on how DDN's modular rules might work, this may provide some insight: http://www.tor.com/blogs/2012/11/the-world-of-darkness-shines-when-it-abandons-canon

@mikemearls: Uhhh... do you really not see all the 3e/4e that's basically the entire core system?

 

It is entirely unnecessary to denigrate someone else's approach to gaming in order to validate your own.

As all of the people who complain about imbalance happen to exist in real life, and are not AIs that exist only on the forums, it is obvious that balance is an issue for people in real life. Furthermore, my experience is very different from the OPs, and I have been playing RPGs for over 20 years as well (about 21-24 years now, depending on whether we count Hero Quest or not).

 

Now, don't get me wrong. I don't equate balance with 4e, don't think 4e was particularly well balanced, and prefer spotlight balance design; but, whether or not I buy Next will directly depend on whether I believe that the final product is balanced or not. If it in any way, shape, or form resembles the imbalance of 3e, I won't touch it with a 10 foot pole.  

SirAntoine wrote:

There is no doubt the OP did nothing wrong, and his opinion is well reasoned and just.  In my opinion, everyone should be taking a look at this because it illuminates the possibility that many people on these forums are making up their concerns in attempts to do damage.

 

I would urge the designers to try harder to strain out any of the bad posts, so they can still take feedback here at all and don't have to turn a blind eye to every one of us because of a few.

So, now people are being accused of making up false claims?
...whatever

1. I've seen plenty of groups worry about balance explicitly.

2. Ben in groups where people don't obsess about DPR out loud, there's often That One Guy who always plays the most powerful class for the system.

3. Even aside from that guy, a poorly balanced system does restrict character options, because Doesn't Suck Compared to His Peers is actually a valid and important part of many character concepts. Like, sure, I can play a "swashbuckler" in 3e by just playing a fighter with a rapier, but it's hard to role play Zorro or Inigo Montoyo when I die in a couple rounds against level-appropriate challenges.

 

SirAntoine wrote:

There is no doubt the OP did nothing wrong, and his opinion is well reasoned and just.  In my opinion, everyone should be taking a look at this because it illuminates the possibility that many people on these forums are making up their concerns in attempts to do damage.

 

I would urge the designers to try harder to strain out any of the bad posts, so they can still take feedback here at all and don't have to turn a blind eye to every one of us because of a few.

Antoine, people disagree with you because they've had different experiences and have different opinions, not because they're mean-spirited jerks who want to hurt you.  Get a glass of water.

TaalVastal wrote:

Ok, I am going to put this simply...

 

 

@XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek  You have a great username, and I also agree with you completely. 100%. Good man for posting this.

 

Cheers mate!

AzoriusGuildmage wrote:

 

SirAntoine wrote:

There is no doubt the OP did nothing wrong, and his opinion is well reasoned and just.  In my opinion, everyone should be taking a look at this because it illuminates the possibility that many people on these forums are making up their concerns in attempts to do damage.

 

I would urge the designers to try harder to strain out any of the bad posts, so they can still take feedback here at all and don't have to turn a blind eye to every one of us because of a few.

 

Antoine, people disagree with you because they've had different experiences and have different opinions, not because they're mean-spirited jerks who want to hurt you.  Get a glass of water.

 

That could apply just as easily to some other folks here, and in this very thread even.

For those confused on how DDN's modular rules might work, this may provide some insight: http://www.tor.com/blogs/2012/11/the-world-of-darkness-shines-when-it-abandons-canon

@mikemearls: Uhhh... do you really not see all the 3e/4e that's basically the entire core system?

 

It is entirely unnecessary to denigrate someone else's approach to gaming in order to validate your own.

strider1276 wrote:

 

AzoriusGuildmage wrote:

 

SirAntoine wrote:

There is no doubt the OP did nothing wrong, and his opinion is well reasoned and just.  In my opinion, everyone should be taking a look at this because it illuminates the possibility that many people on these forums are making up their concerns in attempts to do damage.

 

I would urge the designers to try harder to strain out any of the bad posts, so they can still take feedback here at all and don't have to turn a blind eye to every one of us because of a few.

 

Antoine, people disagree with you because they've had different experiences and have different opinions, not because they're mean-spirited jerks who want to hurt you.  Get a glass of water.

 

That could apply just as easily to some other folks here, and in this very thread even.

To the majority of the forum, even.  

I know I discussed broken mechanics during my first post and I said I wasn't talking about them, but I just wanted to bring something else up. I know 3rd edition and Pathfinder have some broken elements to them, but that doesn't bother me because most DM's worth a grain of salt would not allow such things to be at their table. I don't care that a Pun Pun is possible because I know he would never see the light of day at 99.9% of games.

XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:

I know I discussed broken mechanics during my first post and I said I wasn't talking about them, but I just wanted to bring something else up. I know 3rd edition and Pathfinder have some broken elements to them, but that doesn't bother me because most DM's worth a grain of salt would not allow such things to be at their table. I don't care that a Pun Pun is possible because I know he would never see the light of day at 99.9% of games.

So, you're making it clear that everything is 4E's fault, that 4E fans don't exist in real life, and that their concerns only exist on the internet and not in real life?
...whatever

XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:

First of all, I'm not talking about broken mechanics. I'm talking about the myth that a lot of people somehow want all classes to be balanced when it comes to combat and damage.

 

Now what I am about to post is from my own experience and the experiences of those I have gamed with for many years. I have been playing RPG's for over 27 years now. I am actively engaged in Pathfinder Society and with various Cons. In all my years, I have yet to come across a player, except on internet forums, who wants this so called balance that 4th edition gave us. The people that I have gamed with do not care about DPR, nor do they measure contributing to the game with numbers. These people aren't worried about choosing that right stat line up, or that race class combo, or even that special selection of certain feats that synergize perfectly. They are also not the people who want all their abilities to equally work at optimal efficiency against everything.

 

These people choose classes based on a concept they have so they will choose those feats that people on these forums discourage against taking because they aren't optimal numerically. These same people don't mind when the barbarian does 56 points of damage while the rogue does 25 because they aren't in a hurry to win combat nor do they mind if the barbarian does a lot more damage.

 

This is how I feel about the game. Concept is what's important to me and sometimes my concept is based around combat and sometimes it's not. I have found that a heavy emphasis on balanced combat leads to option bloat. This attitude promotes the selection of feats and backgrounds that only grant a numerical combat advantage, so what we get is loads of feats and backgrounds that are considered sub-optimal and are therefore discouraged.

 

From my own experience, the balance issue is not an actual issue at all. I'm sure your miles may vary, and it may be an issue for you but it's not for me and the many people that I deal with.

Then your experience is the exact opposite of mine. Every Con/Gameday has at least one and often more powergamer who are obsessed with these perfect combination or that. Often I have met people who brought a particular character for the only reason that they came up with one particular new way of char-op that they want to now test out under real terms to see if it matches up to their theorycraft expectations

 

I also saw quite a few people who cared more about the story of their character but were ultimately too disappointed that their valorus knight was essentially only throwing cotton balls at the enemies creating such a dissonance between what they were supposed to represent from the RP side and what they actually were able to accomplish when it came down to battle, that they eventually had to retire the characters.

XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:

I know I discussed broken mechanics during my first post and I said I wasn't talking about them, but I just wanted to bring something else up. I know 3rd edition and Pathfinder have some broken elements to them, but that doesn't bother me because most DM's worth a grain of salt would not allow such things to be at their table. I don't care that a Pun Pun is possible because I know he would never see the light of day at 99.9% of games.

 

I agree that Pun Pun doesn't matter. What matters is that a monk10 and a fighter10 and a wizard10 and a fighter5/wizard5 all have such different power levels that they can barely have fun against the same enemy.

ClockworkNecktie wrote:

 

XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:

I know I discussed broken mechanics during my first post and I said I wasn't talking about them, but I just wanted to bring something else up. I know 3rd edition and Pathfinder have some broken elements to them, but that doesn't bother me because most DM's worth a grain of salt would not allow such things to be at their table. I don't care that a Pun Pun is possible because I know he would never see the light of day at 99.9% of games.

 

 What matters is that a monk10 and a fighter10 and a wizard10 and a fighter5/wizard5 all have such different power levels that they can barely have fun against the same enemy.

 

Enlighten me on this?

 

People I play with have fun so I'm not sure where the problem is. Please discuss how and why you think this should matter to people who aren't worried about DPR.

AzoriusGuildmage wrote:

 

strider1276 wrote:

 

AzoriusGuildmage wrote:

 

SirAntoine wrote:

There is no doubt the OP did nothing wrong, and his opinion is well reasoned and just.  In my opinion, everyone should be taking a look at this because it illuminates the possibility that many people on these forums are making up their concerns in attempts to do damage.

 

I would urge the designers to try harder to strain out any of the bad posts, so they can still take feedback here at all and don't have to turn a blind eye to every one of us because of a few.

 

Antoine, people disagree with you because they've had different experiences and have different opinions, not because they're mean-spirited jerks who want to hurt you.  Get a glass of water.

 

That could apply just as easily to some other folks here, and in this very thread even.

 

To the majority of the forum, even.  

 

Well, the majority of the internet, actually. People on here are skilled at making themselves or their chosen demographic - which is always "large," "sizable," or some other qualifier to signify the person's importance - look like the victim. It makes what little faith I might have had in humanity wane even further.

For those confused on how DDN's modular rules might work, this may provide some insight: http://www.tor.com/blogs/2012/11/the-world-of-darkness-shines-when-it-abandons-canon

@mikemearls: Uhhh... do you really not see all the 3e/4e that's basically the entire core system?

 

It is entirely unnecessary to denigrate someone else's approach to gaming in order to validate your own.

strider1276 wrote:

 

AzoriusGuildmage wrote:

 

strider1276 wrote:

 

AzoriusGuildmage wrote:

 

SirAntoine wrote:

There is no doubt the OP did nothing wrong, and his opinion is well reasoned and just.  In my opinion, everyone should be taking a look at this because it illuminates the possibility that many people on these forums are making up their concerns in attempts to do damage.

 

I would urge the designers to try harder to strain out any of the bad posts, so they can still take feedback here at all and don't have to turn a blind eye to every one of us because of a few.

 

Antoine, people disagree with you because they've had different experiences and have different opinions, not because they're mean-spirited jerks who want to hurt you.  Get a glass of water.

 

That could apply just as easily to some other folks here, and in this very thread even.

 

To the majority of the forum, even.  

 

Well, the majority of the internet, actually. People on here are skilled at making themselves or their chosen demographic - which is always "large," "sizable," or some other qualifier to signify the person's importance - look like the victim. It makes what little faith I might have had in humanity wane even further.

From what I see, only one side of this argument in this thread is trying to assert that the other side doesn't exist in real life.
...whatever

XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:

 

ClockworkNecktie wrote:

 

XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:

I know I discussed broken mechanics during my first post and I said I wasn't talking about them, but I just wanted to bring something else up. I know 3rd edition and Pathfinder have some broken elements to them, but that doesn't bother me because most DM's worth a grain of salt would not allow such things to be at their table. I don't care that a Pun Pun is possible because I know he would never see the light of day at 99.9% of games.

 

 What matters is that a monk10 and a fighter10 and a wizard10 and a fighter5/wizard5 all have such different power levels that they can barely have fun against the same enemy.

 

 

Enlighten me on this?

 

People I play with have fun so I'm not sure where the problem is. Please discuss how and why you think this should matter to people who aren't worried about DPR.

Eventually people who discover that they ended up playing C3PO alongside Anakin and Obiwan will notice. It's not small discrepancies that spoil the fun, it's when glarring design issue make a particular combination simply next to useless.

 

Hitting for 15  while everyone is hitting for 20 is one thing. Hitting for 4 while everyone is hitting for 20 is another

AzoriusGuildmage wrote:

 

SirAntoine wrote:

There is no doubt the OP did nothing wrong, and his opinion is well reasoned and just.  In my opinion, everyone should be taking a look at this because it illuminates the possibility that many people on these forums are making up their concerns in attempts to do damage.

 

I would urge the designers to try harder to strain out any of the bad posts, so they can still take feedback here at all and don't have to turn a blind eye to every one of us because of a few.

 

Antoine, people disagree with you because they've had different experiences and have different opinions, not because they're mean-spirited jerks who want to hurt you.  Get a glass of water.

 

LOL.  I have read some pretty incredible posts here, actually.  Trolling is hard enough to believe in, but it happens.

XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:

 

ClockworkNecktie wrote:

 

XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:

I know I discussed broken mechanics during my first post and I said I wasn't talking about them, but I just wanted to bring something else up. I know 3rd edition and Pathfinder have some broken elements to them, but that doesn't bother me because most DM's worth a grain of salt would not allow such things to be at their table. I don't care that a Pun Pun is possible because I know he would never see the light of day at 99.9% of games.

 

 What matters is that a monk10 and a fighter10 and a wizard10 and a fighter5/wizard5 all have such different power levels that they can barely have fun against the same enemy.

 

 

Enlighten me on this?

 

People I play with have fun so I'm not sure where the problem is. Please discuss how and why you think this should matter to people who aren't worried about DPR.

If people are truly unconcerned about DPR why should they care if it gets fixed?
...whatever

This thread is bad and you should feel bad.

 

The idea here is that either

A: people on these forums don't actually play RPGs or

B: they make up claims to argue on the internet but don't actually have these problems.

 

Really? This is your position? Are you sure that you're thinking this through?

 

Me - and my group of 5 other players - left 3.5 because we felt the class imbalance (together with other significant problems) was too big of a deal. Not because somebody made Pun-Pun, not because somebody broke the game - it's hilarious that you think that is an example of "balance brigade" complaints. Laughable, and obviously you don't see the point at all. No, me and my group stopped playing D&D entirely because two players were dominating the game without trying to min-max, while the other players were struggling to even be able to realize their character concept, let alone excel. Casters were making chumps out of martial classes. As I ramped up the difficulty of encounters to challenge the casters, it became deadly to the martial types. If I kept encounters to the point that they challenged martial characters, casters would trump them every time.

 

After careful consideration and a group consensus between a half-dozen people, we decided that instead of houseruling like mad, we would simply quite D&D and find a better game to play that let everybody take part in the fun, not 1/3 of the group only. Bear in mind that 4e had not yet been released. We left D&D entirely and were okay with never purchasing another D&D product or playing a D&D game, that's how bad we felt the game was - not because we wanted to switch to a newer edition.

 

But do please tell me that I'm making this up, that I haven't actually spent the last decade and a half playing RPGs, or just go ahead and say "LFQW is a myth!".

 

It certainly brings credit to you and your opinions.

Supporting an edition you like does not make you an edition warrior. Demanding that everybody else support your edition makes you an edition warrior.

Why do I like 13th Age? Because I like D&D: http://magbonch.wordpress.com/2013/10/16/first-impressions-13th-age/

AzoriusGuildmage- "I think that you simply spent so long playing it, especially in your formative years with the hobby, that you've long since rationalized or houseruled away its oddities, and set it in your mind as the standard for what is and isn't reasonable in an rpg."

thecasualoblivion wrote:
From what I see, only one side of this argument in this thread is trying to assert that the other side doesn't exist in real life.

 

If one person has said that, that doesn't paint an entire "side" the same way. Of course, you're the same person who attempted to assert that the OP was claiming that this was the way things were based on the thread title, which very clearly says, and I quote, "(In My Opinion)." So....maybe, just maybe, you're being a little over-sensitive here.

 

Also, in the other thread, I mentioned a game to you that you might enjoy that doesn't have what you describe as "DM empowerment," mostly because it doesn't have a GM of any sort. I was trying to be genuinely helpful, but not sure if you saw it. Did you?

For those confused on how DDN's modular rules might work, this may provide some insight: http://www.tor.com/blogs/2012/11/the-world-of-darkness-shines-when-it-abandons-canon

@mikemearls: Uhhh... do you really not see all the 3e/4e that's basically the entire core system?

 

It is entirely unnecessary to denigrate someone else's approach to gaming in order to validate your own.

blacksheepcannibal wrote:

This thread is bad and you should feel bad.

 

The idea here is that either

A: people on these forums don't actually play RPGs or

B: they make up claims to argue on the internet but don't actually have these problems.

 

Really? This is your position? Are you sure that you're thinking this through?

 

Me - and my group of 5 other players - left 3.5 because we felt the class imbalance (together with other significant problems) was too big of a deal. Not because somebody made Pun-Pun, not because somebody broke the game - it's hilarious that you think that is an example of "balance brigade" complaints. Laughable, and obviously you don't see the point at all. No, me and my group stopped playing D&D entirely because two players were dominating the game without trying to min-max, while the other players were struggling to even be able to realize their character concept, let alone excel. Casters were making chumps out of martial classes. As I ramped up the difficulty of encounters to challenge the casters, it became deadly to the martial types. If I kept encounters to the point that they challenged martial characters, casters would trump them every time.

 

After careful consideration and a group consensus between a half-dozen people, we decided that instead of houseruling like mad, we would simply quite D&D and find a better game to play that let everybody take part in the fun, not 1/3 of the group only. Bear in mind that 4e had not yet been released. We left D&D entirely and were okay with never purchasing another D&D product or playing a D&D game, that's how bad we felt the game was - not because we wanted to switch to a newer edition.

 

But do please tell me that I'm making this up, that I haven't actually spent the last decade and a half playing RPGs, or just go ahead and say "LFQW is a myth!".

 

It certainly brings credit to you and your opinions.

blacksheepcannibal wrote:

This thread is bad and you should feel bad.

 

The idea here is that either

A: people on these forums don't actually play RPGs or

B: they make up claims to argue on the internet but don't actually have these problems.

 

Really? This is your position? Are you sure that you're thinking this through?

 

Me - and my group of 5 other players - left 3.5 because we felt the class imbalance (together with other significant problems) was too big of a deal. Not because somebody made Pun-Pun, not because somebody broke the game - it's hilarious that you think that is an example of "balance brigade" complaints. Laughable, and obviously you don't see the point at all. No, me and my group stopped playing D&D entirely because two players were dominating the game without trying to min-max, while the other players were struggling to even be able to realize their character concept, let alone excel. Casters were making chumps out of martial classes. As I ramped up the difficulty of encounters to challenge the casters, it became deadly to the martial types. If I kept encounters to the point that they challenged martial characters, casters would trump them every time.

 

After careful consideration and a group consensus between a half-dozen people, we decided that instead of houseruling like mad, we would simply quite D&D and find a better game to play that let everybody take part in the fun, not 1/3 of the group only. Bear in mind that 4e had not yet been released. We left D&D entirely and were okay with never purchasing another D&D product or playing a D&D game, that's how bad we felt the game was - not because we wanted to switch to a newer edition.

 

But do please tell me that I'm making this up, that I haven't actually spent the last decade and a half playing RPGs, or just go ahead and say "LFQW is a myth!".

 

It certainly brings credit to you and your opinions.

blacksheepcannibal wrote:

This thread is bad and you should feel bad.

 

The idea here is that either

A: people on these forums don't actually play RPGs or

B: they make up claims to argue on the internet but don't actually have these problems.

 

Really? This is your position? Are you sure that you're thinking this through?

 

Me - and my group of 5 other players - left 3.5 because we felt the class imbalance (together with other significant problems) was too big of a deal. Not because somebody made Pun-Pun, not because somebody broke the game - it's hilarious that you think that is an example of "balance brigade" complaints. Laughable, and obviously you don't see the point at all. No, me and my group stopped playing D&D entirely because two players were dominating the game without trying to min-max, while the other players were struggling to even be able to realize their character concept, let alone excel. Casters were making chumps out of martial classes. As I ramped up the difficulty of encounters to challenge the casters, it became deadly to the martial types. If I kept encounters to the point that they challenged martial characters, casters would trump them every time.

 

After careful consideration and a group consensus between a half-dozen people, we decided that instead of houseruling like mad, we would simply quite D&D and find a better game to play that let everybody take part in the fun, not 1/3 of the group only. Bear in mind that 4e had not yet been released. We left D&D entirely and were okay with never purchasing another D&D product or playing a D&D game, that's how bad we felt the game was - not because we wanted to switch to a newer edition.

 

But do please tell me that I'm making this up, that I haven't actually spent the last decade and a half playing RPGs, or just go ahead and say "LFQW is a myth!".

 

It certainly brings credit to you and your opinions.

blacksheepcannibal wrote:

This thread is bad and you should feel bad.

 

The idea here is that either

A: people on these forums don't actually play RPGs or

B: they make up claims to argue on the internet but don't actually have these problems.

 

Really? This is your position? Are you sure that you're thinking this through?

 

Me - and my group of 5 other players - left 3.5 because we felt the class imbalance (together with other significant problems) was too big of a deal. Not because somebody made Pun-Pun, not because somebody broke the game - it's hilarious that you think that is an example of "balance brigade" complaints. Laughable, and obviously you don't see the point at all. No, me and my group stopped playing D&D entirely because two players were dominating the game without trying to min-max, while the other players were struggling to even be able to realize their character concept, let alone excel. Casters were making chumps out of martial classes. As I ramped up the difficulty of encounters to challenge the casters, it became deadly to the martial types. If I kept encounters to the point that they challenged martial characters, casters would trump them every time.

 

After careful consideration and a group consensus between a half-dozen people, we decided that instead of houseruling like mad, we would simply quite D&D and find a better game to play that let everybody take part in the fun, not 1/3 of the group only. Bear in mind that 4e had not yet been released. We left D&D entirely and were okay with never purchasing another D&D product or playing a D&D game, that's how bad we felt the game was - not because we wanted to switch to a newer edition.

 

But do please tell me that I'm making this up, that I haven't actually spent the last decade and a half playing RPGs, or just go ahead and say "LFQW is a myth!".

 

It certainly brings credit to you and your opinions.

 

Actually, this is a great thread and I know a lot more than you think.

strider1276 wrote:

 

thecasualoblivion wrote:
From what I see, only one side of this argument in this thread is trying to assert that the other side doesn't exist in real life.

 

If one person has said that, that doesn't paint an entire "side" the same way. Of course, you're the same person who attempted to assert that the OP was claiming that this was the way things were based on the thread title, which very clearly says, and I quote, "(In My Opinion)." So....maybe, just maybe, you're being a little over-sensitive here.

 

Also, in the other thread, I mentioned a game to you that you might enjoy that doesn't have what you describe as "DM empowerment," mostly because it doesn't have a GM of any sort. I was trying to be genuinely helpful, but not sure if you saw it. Did you?

If you disagree with the premise of the thread, maybe you shouldn't be unqualifyingly cheering the OP on?
...whatever

 

I <3 this forum.

 

I just said something and you just read it. Sorry about that.

kill_the_wiz_first wrote:

 

I <3 this forum.

 

I know, it's great huh?

Keep up the great work, XunVal!

blacksheepcannibal wrote:

This thread is bad and you should feel bad.

 

The idea here is that either

A: people on these forums don't actually play RPGs or

B: they make up claims to argue on the internet but don't actually have these problems.

 

Really? This is your position? Are you sure that you're thinking this through?

 

Me - and my group of 5 other players - left 3.5 because we felt the class imbalance (together with other significant problems) was too big of a deal. Not because somebody made Pun-Pun, not because somebody broke the game - it's hilarious that you think that is an example of "balance brigade" complaints. Laughable, and obviously you don't see the point at all. No, me and my group stopped playing D&D entirely because two players were dominating the game without trying to min-max, while the other players were struggling to even be able to realize their character concept, let alone excel. Casters were making chumps out of martial classes. As I ramped up the difficulty of encounters to challenge the casters, it became deadly to the martial types. If I kept encounters to the point that they challenged martial characters, casters would trump them every time.

 

After careful consideration and a group consensus between a half-dozen people, we decided that instead of houseruling like mad, we would simply quite D&D and find a better game to play that let everybody take part in the fun, not 1/3 of the group only. Bear in mind that 4e had not yet been released. We left D&D entirely and were okay with never purchasing another D&D product or playing a D&D game, that's how bad we felt the game was - not because we wanted to switch to a newer edition.

 

But do please tell me that I'm making this up, that I haven't actually spent the last decade and a half playing RPGs, or just go ahead and say "LFQW is a myth!".

 

It certainly brings credit to you and your opinions.

 

Frankly, I have a hard time believing this.

thecasualoblivion wrote:
If you disagree with the premise of the thread, maybe you shouldn't be unqualifyingly cheering the OP on?

 

I'll put this in a numbered list for clarity.

 

1. I don't disagree with the premise of the thread. I agree with it entirely, as it fits my experiences (also, like I said in my first post, "balance" is useful in white-room scenarios only; otherwise, so long as any one thing isn't so powerful that you're stupid if you don't take it, that's fine). I simply disagree with your overly sensitive interpretation of the thread's premise.

 

2. The OP said specifically his conclusions were reached from his experience and opinion. That doesn't mean that things he hasn't experienced don't exist. You are flat out making that up. I've never experienced a whale in the wild - or ever, actually. Does that mean whales don't exist? I've never had an experience of jumping out of a plane (and sure as hell won't). Does that mean skydiving doesn't exist? Nope. People have a different opinion and different experiences than you do, and draw different conclusions from those experiences. Get used to that.

 

3. I asked you a direct question based on something I said to you in another thread in an attempt to give you a helpful suggestion, and you completely ignore me. Stay classy, San Diego.

For those confused on how DDN's modular rules might work, this may provide some insight: http://www.tor.com/blogs/2012/11/the-world-of-darkness-shines-when-it-abandons-canon

@mikemearls: Uhhh... do you really not see all the 3e/4e that's basically the entire core system?

 

It is entirely unnecessary to denigrate someone else's approach to gaming in order to validate your own.

XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:

Actually, this is a great thread and I know a lot more than you think.

So which is it? Am I lying and making it up, or have I never actually played D&D?

Supporting an edition you like does not make you an edition warrior. Demanding that everybody else support your edition makes you an edition warrior.

Why do I like 13th Age? Because I like D&D: http://magbonch.wordpress.com/2013/10/16/first-impressions-13th-age/

AzoriusGuildmage- "I think that you simply spent so long playing it, especially in your formative years with the hobby, that you've long since rationalized or houseruled away its oddities, and set it in your mind as the standard for what is and isn't reasonable in an rpg."

strider1276 wrote:

2. The OP said specifically his conclusions were reached from his experience and opinion. That doesn't mean that things he hasn't experienced don't exist. You are flat out making that up. I've never experienced a whale in the wild - or ever, actually. Does that mean whales don't exist?

What you think is going on "I've never seen a person that actually cares about balance."

 

What is actually going on: "Nobody actually cares about balance because I've never seen somebody that does."

Supporting an edition you like does not make you an edition warrior. Demanding that everybody else support your edition makes you an edition warrior.

Why do I like 13th Age? Because I like D&D: http://magbonch.wordpress.com/2013/10/16/first-impressions-13th-age/

AzoriusGuildmage- "I think that you simply spent so long playing it, especially in your formative years with the hobby, that you've long since rationalized or houseruled away its oddities, and set it in your mind as the standard for what is and isn't reasonable in an rpg."

blacksheepcannibal wrote:

 

strider1276 wrote:

2. The OP said specifically his conclusions were reached from his experience and opinion. That doesn't mean that things he hasn't experienced don't exist. You are flat out making that up. I've never experienced a whale in the wild - or ever, actually. Does that mean whales don't exist?

 

What you think is going on "I've never seen a person that actually cares about balance."

 

What is actually going on: "Nobody actually cares about balance because I've never seen somebody that does."

 

A particular type of balance is being discussed, and you are wrong to twist the words of the OP.

blacksheepcannibal wrote:

 

XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:

Actually, this is a great thread and I know a lot more than you think.

 

So which is it? Am I lying and making it up, or have I never actually played D&D?

 

Really? So we're forcing others to argue now?

 

Someone says something.

 

Somone else goes nah-uh.

 

The first person is like "Wait, I'm just trying to express my thoughts"

 

Nay-sayer says, go ahead pick up the gun. Go ahead. Do it.

 

I just said something and you just read it. Sorry about that.

Sign In to post comments