3e vs. 4e (Was RE: [gurps] Sad day)

[Chris J. Whitcomb]

(corrected for top-posting)
Anituel wrote:
> On 8/17/06, Eric Funk <
> eric_funk_anti_spam_this_is_a_real_email_address at r3d.net> wrote:
>>
>> <snipped>
>>>
>>> And in 3e using extended Magery rules the 205 points you spent on
>>> IQ+Magery would buy IQ17 + Magery-7, which is only one point lower
>>> in terms of IQ+Magery, still lets you buy all spells at 20+ for one
>>> point,
>>> and makes your mental skills even cheaper. How is 4e more broken?
>>
>> My Players would probably choose IQ13 + Magery 14 and get all H
>> spells at 25
>> with 1cp... :)
>>
> I just plain ol' wouldn't allow that.  I'm of the mind that pretty
> much EVERY roleplaying system out there is pretty broken.  Believe
> me; my players have found chinks in the armor of every last one that
> we've ever tried. It's the GM's responsibility to keep game balance
> even if it means sometimes taking a hardline "No you can't do that"
> type of stance.  My players all got used to that one pretty quickly,
> and sometimes we even have a lot of fun coming up with exactly why
> they can't do that in terms of the campaign world.

I'm reminded of Guardians of Order's Role-Playing Game Manifesto.... one of 
the items:
"Min/maxing and munchkinism aren't problems with the game; they're problems 
with the player."

No matter what game system, there is a way to break it if you are determined 
enough.  Personally, I'd rather spend my energy enjoying a game's strong 
points than wasting that energy looking for its weaknesses.