Community

Feb 18, 2012 -- 7:52AM, EnerlaNet wrote:

Feb 18, 2012 -- 7:17AM, TheMormegil wrote:

First, you're starting to get personal. I'm sorry you felt offended by my post, but really, it was intended as a way to show that different preferences exist, and should be accounted for. Second:
1) False. I had a party of 2 rangers and a PHB-only Wizard, none of which were very optimized, and managed to create cool encounter experiences for the party easily.

Just to avoid long flamewars.

You speak about a balanced framework were characters are equal, things are balanced. Now you say 3 characters from that framework show how non equal characters work.

Now they are either equaly or not equal. Hint: they are equal. And you know it well how the balancing stuff worked, and how 20% weaker characters won't happen (yes, that is about -4 in all rolls, etc). Yet you claim the game works with that even if you shown you know well that isn't the case.

Ignoring the passive aggressiveness:
I speak of a balanced framework (which exists in 4E and I trust you are with me on this point) where all characters are equally able to contribute. I took a heavily unbalanced party (no leader, no defender, weak controller) and used it to prove that your point:

 Even 20% less combat efficiency would make a challenging tactical combat become "impossible to win" and that is quite far from "Purposefully unusuable in combat". And I am sure even if you wrote it in an other way wrapped up in a nice insult, you know this as you know how tactical combat and balanced encounters work.

...is not true, as challenging tactical combats are entirely up to the DM.

As for the -4 in all rolls, it's not going to happen, and that's part of the balanced framework, but I don't think you truly believe numerical values are the only thing that matters in an encounter? A -4 in all rolls is a huge drawback, it is tough to balance properly, and the system avoids exactly that. However, it still allows for characters who are not focused on combat as long as you are willing to accept that your character sheet is combat-centered.

Feb 18, 2012 -- 1:25AM, Dreamstryder wrote:

 Dungeons don't follow normal laws; they are strange testing grounds born of dream and nightmare 

I hated that nonsense... all the way back it seemed like ooh look a rationalization for hack and slash game of pac-man and so the DM didnt have to try and have it make sense. Quite seriously a cop out.

Feb 18, 2012 -- 8:28AM, TheMormegil wrote:

I am not disrupting the thread by merely stating that your personal preferences are just preferences

No, you just disrupt it by quite a few other things. I won't repeat myself.

The key here isn't about personal preferences. It is a pretty simple thing, and I said it in the first post: You won't be able to sell D&D or any RPG by stating it is tactical. As people who aren't in RPGs yet and want tactical will go and buy StarCraft 2 instead.

All you can do if you want to sell them D&D is to tell them why D&D and RPGs are great. And it shouldn't be a "more expensive, less shiny alternative to Starcraft 2 with more work involved", but something that sounds great. Period. No preferences, no buts, no ifs, no I prefer this edition mores, but easy to understand stuff. People who want tactical combat can get it cheaper, easier and faster everywhere. If you want to sell D&D to new players with it, it won't work well. And you see why.

As a secound hint. Bullying, trolling, lieing, and telling people that they are wrong won't sell D&D either. It will only make the game bad and its community is full of ****s. It won't make anyone buy D&D and will keep market shrinking. It is simple as that. Want to avoid that? Then get your facts straight. You don't and you keep contradicting yourself, spice it up with insults, nasty comments? It won't work either.

As WOTC seems to love this later approach, so be it. It is their invested money, it will be their failure, no point in discussing D&D next anymore.