Posted by dahsdebater on 9/22/2016 3:54:00 AM (view original):
I prefer that, personally. I think it's better for the game when it's more deterministic.
You mean it's better for the game you'd like to play based on your preferences. I respect that, we all have our own preferences. But my experience with every multi-player game I've ever played, from D&D on, is that game developers need to constantly shift and adapt to avoid having players get stuck at the top. There are basically two types of game-players, the type that wants to figure it all out and conquer it, and the type that wants to experience and immerse him/herself in it. And no offense to anyone in the former camp, but they're just not as important to he game as those in the latter camp. Those players whose goal is to figure out and conquer the game also tend to be the most frustrated with changes, and the least likely to actually be willing to pay full price. It's decidedly *not* good for the game when players get entrenched, especially if the game has incentives, like WIS.
The best case you could make for the hard determinism you like being "good for the game" is that changing it may produce a period of rapid departures. But that ignores how empty the worlds already are, and dismisses the preferences of all those players and potential players who have tried it and left, or didn't ever really give it a chance.