Lord Mistborn wrote:
Not really I'm on record as being fine with low difficulty games in principal as long as they're done in a honest fassion.
I've been exposed to Fighter-level experiences ever since I started playing D&D. Combine that with playing similar PC level ranges repetitively over the years, when you find out the level of cool options out there, and eventually want something different. Not just that though, I was also trying to point out in a more objective manner, that these balance points do ascribe to a chance for a greater experience with the ruleset.
I've been
referring to this, in regards to what I've been talking about, and thus why I found it odd when people giving the notion I was talking "my way or highway" type deal. As it very well describes in the
Fighter-level range, that most people play in, that characters built there tend to be limited in options and otherwise one-dimensional. The Fighter-level is actually "below" the game itself, and playing to it, would be getting an "inferior experience" in due fact, not to the actual balance point of what the rules can do.
Rogue-level is ascribed as basically "being the game itself", stuff at this level is to be the actual balance point of the rules,can play across the entire game, and have capability to go into Big Leagues a little bit if desired (read:Wizard-level of balance). However,
Wizard-level itself, is basically described as "above the game" as the capabilities pull away from the RNG of the monsters capabilities at mid level (if not a bit sooner). While Rogue-level content may get a taste of this at points, not really all that necessary to play at this level, getting perhaps "above and beyond" the experience of the games ruleset/expectations, though nothing wrong if people want to do TURBO D&D, TO THE EXTREME!
As for
RadiantPhoenix's categories:
First point, I believe people were including me into such a category? Odd in that, my goal would be quite the opposite, a sort of "broaden ones horizons" to those ignorant of the ruleset. Anyway, that point usually implies a game where people are ignorant of the ruleset, Wizards cast evocation, Fighters/Rogues flank, and a Cleric is essentially an ineffective white mage. While people may play whatever the hell they want when gets down to it, surprises me after nearly a decade, people are "still" this lacking in knowledge of the game (creating people like therpgsite).
Secondly, it can be insulting in the context of when people brag lame "achievements". Like a 3rd level party stomping a single Mindflayer, who apparently was on a flat plane, within distance, to be easily uber-charged and taken out. Without even most basic of encounter building, Mindflayer not in its home environment/ideal conditions, thus weakens the worth of its CR (much like Kobolds fight in tunnels, not battlefields,plus charging =easily countered). Similar with how people brag that their character is so "competitive", overpowered, and then become defensive/condemning when truth pointed out otherwise.
Above is a quite damning mentality, but this regard that cements in people's minds that games genuine experience should be like this. Fighter-level and worse, is the way people like therpgsite think is one-true-way experience of D&D. So when people actually want to play to the games strength (Rogue-level), they are condemned and relegated to be among the minority (wheres you'd think playing "below standard" should be).
Lastly, I wouldn't want to DM/play in a game where everyone else suffers. I'd want all PC's to be held to the same standard, if groups gonna do Rogue-level, then all the PC's should be in that appropriate balance range. So if some are falling behind, beef em up in some way satisfactory (instead of PHB Monk,play the [Tome] Monk class!), similar in toning things down, if someone is overshadowing the other PC's (that high-AC PC example I guess?).
