TheAuldGrump
First Post
The problem kicks in when the rest of the line is '4e creates new and, in my estimation, worse problems in its quest for balance'.Actually, I'd argue that the real showstopper is that the vast majority of those billions wouldn't come anywhere near actually playing the game even if it were translated into a language they spoke (which, of course, goes a long way towards explaining why they never pursued those translations in the first place), but I understand what you're getting at.
I'm not saying that you shouldn't play the game you like just because others see problems with it. That would be a silly thing to say.
What I am saying is that balance is a worthy goal in game design, and the "I don't see any problems with balance in my D&D games," isn't really ammunition against that argument.
And that seems to be the part that you gloss over - that some people feel that 4e has worse problems than the perceived lack of balance in 3.X - 3.P. That 4e has not fixed the problems, it has merely exchanged them for others, and those are problems that ruin the game for some folks. Me, I would rather have the problems that are in 3.X than play 4e.
And some do not see the perceived lack of balance to be a problem at all, let alone a problem worth changing the entire game to 'fix'. That it was not broken to begin with, and the fix is worse than the 'problem'. Something like 'Congratulations, the square wheel is more stable than a round one....'
The Auld Grump