Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Convincing 4th Edition players to consider 5th Edition
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 5968431" data-attributes="member: 996"><p>It could be true for at least some, sure. Or or some could recognize them as positive, but have other reasons - like the changes to the FR setting, for instance - for rejecting them. There could be issues of communication and mis-understanding. Early reviews of 4e called it 'dumbed down,' while later criticisms taken to hear in the development of Essentials said that it was 'too complex' and needed 'simpler options.' Obviously, both criticism can't be true, but they were both made, and, for that matter, are often still repeated. If you like plenty of options and only heard 'dumbed down,' you might never try it. If you dislike complexity and only hear 'needs simper options,' likewise. Then there's all sorts of 'irrational reasons' - ie, honest preferences with no need of some underlying logical justification: nostalgia being an obvious one, or anger at WotC for rolling rev too early (I can empathize with that one). </p><p></p><p>So, yeah, just because 4e is better along this or that dimension of analysis or at this or that technical attribute of an RPG, doesn't mean anyone is obliged to like it, nor do they need to dislike a technical merit to dislike a game displaying that merit. You don't have to hate balance to hate 4e (though, I expect it helps). <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite2" alt=";)" title="Wink ;)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=";)" /></p><p></p><p>Well, there are different aspects of the game that can be balanced, yes. 4e has good class balance, particularly in combat, for instance, but poorer class balance within Skill Challenges, and good encounter balance, but only when the number of encounters/day is predictable (by the DM, that is). And there are many mechanisms that could be used to achieve balance, but they're all just different paths to the same destination. And, none of them ever reach that destination, some just get you closer than others. So the question isn't how is it balanced, but how well and how often, or how easily does it break.</p><p></p><p>Balanced only for campaign play in which no player is ever allowed to change characters. So, requires a specific campaign style. Taken by session-by-session, it's a succession of imbalanced games, with a few balanced ones in the middle. It's also just a little hinky - a "two wrongs make a right" scheme.</p><p></p><p>Only delivers balance over time, if you're not allowed to somehow change class or character and don't have too much random level-draining or level-boosting going on, and if everyone has the same opportunities to gain the same amount of exp (doesn't work so well when some folks miss more games than others, for instance, or when exp is given out individually).</p><p></p><p>Not actually balance. It's no different from the extreme case where one class is superior to all others, so everyone always plays that class, for instance. Identical isn't balanced.</p><p></p><p>Runs into the same problem as better at low level vs high. It only works if players can't change characters, and the campaign strike the ideal balance between combat and non-combat challenges. Even then, it leaves some players more or less out of the game a good half the time. </p><p></p><p>Not actually balanced. Fair, perhaps, but not balanced - not unless such choices are all meaningful and viable, that is. There is a distinction between fair (every player has access to the same options) and balanced (the choices among the options are meaningful and viable - non are 'must haves' or 'traps')</p><p></p><p>I suppose there is a distinction between preferring a method of balance that works very poorly, and preferring imbalance.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 5968431, member: 996"] It could be true for at least some, sure. Or or some could recognize them as positive, but have other reasons - like the changes to the FR setting, for instance - for rejecting them. There could be issues of communication and mis-understanding. Early reviews of 4e called it 'dumbed down,' while later criticisms taken to hear in the development of Essentials said that it was 'too complex' and needed 'simpler options.' Obviously, both criticism can't be true, but they were both made, and, for that matter, are often still repeated. If you like plenty of options and only heard 'dumbed down,' you might never try it. If you dislike complexity and only hear 'needs simper options,' likewise. Then there's all sorts of 'irrational reasons' - ie, honest preferences with no need of some underlying logical justification: nostalgia being an obvious one, or anger at WotC for rolling rev too early (I can empathize with that one). So, yeah, just because 4e is better along this or that dimension of analysis or at this or that technical attribute of an RPG, doesn't mean anyone is obliged to like it, nor do they need to dislike a technical merit to dislike a game displaying that merit. You don't have to hate balance to hate 4e (though, I expect it helps). ;) Well, there are different aspects of the game that can be balanced, yes. 4e has good class balance, particularly in combat, for instance, but poorer class balance within Skill Challenges, and good encounter balance, but only when the number of encounters/day is predictable (by the DM, that is). And there are many mechanisms that could be used to achieve balance, but they're all just different paths to the same destination. And, none of them ever reach that destination, some just get you closer than others. So the question isn't how is it balanced, but how well and how often, or how easily does it break. Balanced only for campaign play in which no player is ever allowed to change characters. So, requires a specific campaign style. Taken by session-by-session, it's a succession of imbalanced games, with a few balanced ones in the middle. It's also just a little hinky - a "two wrongs make a right" scheme. Only delivers balance over time, if you're not allowed to somehow change class or character and don't have too much random level-draining or level-boosting going on, and if everyone has the same opportunities to gain the same amount of exp (doesn't work so well when some folks miss more games than others, for instance, or when exp is given out individually). Not actually balance. It's no different from the extreme case where one class is superior to all others, so everyone always plays that class, for instance. Identical isn't balanced. Runs into the same problem as better at low level vs high. It only works if players can't change characters, and the campaign strike the ideal balance between combat and non-combat challenges. Even then, it leaves some players more or less out of the game a good half the time. Not actually balanced. Fair, perhaps, but not balanced - not unless such choices are all meaningful and viable, that is. There is a distinction between fair (every player has access to the same options) and balanced (the choices among the options are meaningful and viable - non are 'must haves' or 'traps') I suppose there is a distinction between preferring a method of balance that works very poorly, and preferring imbalance. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Convincing 4th Edition players to consider 5th Edition
Top