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
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Realism vs. Believability and the Design of HPs, Powers and Other Things
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="Bedrockgames" data-source="post: 5879281" data-attributes="member: 85555"><p>I want a better game. Improving the system for a new edition is fine, but I want it to feel like D&D to me. This, like any other measure for the "quality" of the game is going to be subjective. What is D&D to you may not be the same to me. But they should strive to create something that both appeals to a large section of the gaming community and is still distinctly D&D. For me and many others, 4E feels like a different game. I is certainly bold and innovative, but it isn't what I think of when I say "that D&D feel".</p><p></p><p>I would just add there is no universal measure for what would make D&D better. For some people building on 4e and refining it would create a better game, for others trying to recapture some of the classic old school elements would be a better game. The only thing I can do is offer my opinions about what will make the game more enjoyable and hope wotc listens.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>These discussions are important because they give us a sense of where different segments of the community are and what they want. We aren't building the game. It isn't our job to create ghe great compromise between us. We are just talking about what our desires are for D&D Next. Hopefully wizards is listening to online chatter like this to help get a sense of where they should take the new edition. They may listen to you, they may listen to me, they may take parts of what we both say and apply those to the design....in the end i expect them to do what they believe will attract the biggest audience to the game. And that is what they should do. But if the end result of that is a game that doesn't interest me, I am not going to waste my free time or my money playing it. In the mean time I will continue to give my opinion on what I hope to see. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Well 4e is also soon to be an older edition. Older doesn't mean worse. However this is not what I am asking for. I understand things will be streamlined and changed (their ideas for baking skills into attributes interests me...but the execution is critical if they want consistent and believable results, so will wait and see what it looks like). What we are getting will not be AD&D or 3E. That isn't what I expect, but I do expect the core system to have a much more classic design than 4E. So in that sense I do want something older I suppose (and if my tastes are old school to others i don't think I need to appologize for that).</p><p></p><p> I mean 4e never really appealed to me so naturally i am not going to be interested in 4e design components making it into core. There may be some things. While the way 4e did balance isn't my cup of tea, they are clearly taking a page from it with their three pillars approach (this still has a 4e underinnign to it but is a bit more flexible and broad from the sound of it). I expect we may see some 4e races and classes (though i do think the warlord will be a tough sell in core for pre 4e fans). </p><p></p><p>But this edition is going to be something of a reaction to 4e. The danger of that is they will go to far. I do think 4e was a reaction to 3e and went too farl when fourth ediiton was planned, I was excited because some of the balance issues and the emphasis on system mastery/optimization was bothering mel so I was very open to a more contained system. But 4e was so different, so focused on parity, and had so many parts that messed with my style, tthat I couldn't get into it. So while they should take a lesson from the excesses of 4e, perhaps where I agree with you is that lesson shouldn't be used to excuse the excesses of prior editions (i.e. 4e is too focused on balance, so any balance is bad).</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Bedrockgames, post: 5879281, member: 85555"] I want a better game. Improving the system for a new edition is fine, but I want it to feel like D&D to me. This, like any other measure for the "quality" of the game is going to be subjective. What is D&D to you may not be the same to me. But they should strive to create something that both appeals to a large section of the gaming community and is still distinctly D&D. For me and many others, 4E feels like a different game. I is certainly bold and innovative, but it isn't what I think of when I say "that D&D feel". I would just add there is no universal measure for what would make D&D better. For some people building on 4e and refining it would create a better game, for others trying to recapture some of the classic old school elements would be a better game. The only thing I can do is offer my opinions about what will make the game more enjoyable and hope wotc listens. These discussions are important because they give us a sense of where different segments of the community are and what they want. We aren't building the game. It isn't our job to create ghe great compromise between us. We are just talking about what our desires are for D&D Next. Hopefully wizards is listening to online chatter like this to help get a sense of where they should take the new edition. They may listen to you, they may listen to me, they may take parts of what we both say and apply those to the design....in the end i expect them to do what they believe will attract the biggest audience to the game. And that is what they should do. But if the end result of that is a game that doesn't interest me, I am not going to waste my free time or my money playing it. In the mean time I will continue to give my opinion on what I hope to see. Well 4e is also soon to be an older edition. Older doesn't mean worse. However this is not what I am asking for. I understand things will be streamlined and changed (their ideas for baking skills into attributes interests me...but the execution is critical if they want consistent and believable results, so will wait and see what it looks like). What we are getting will not be AD&D or 3E. That isn't what I expect, but I do expect the core system to have a much more classic design than 4E. So in that sense I do want something older I suppose (and if my tastes are old school to others i don't think I need to appologize for that). I mean 4e never really appealed to me so naturally i am not going to be interested in 4e design components making it into core. There may be some things. While the way 4e did balance isn't my cup of tea, they are clearly taking a page from it with their three pillars approach (this still has a 4e underinnign to it but is a bit more flexible and broad from the sound of it). I expect we may see some 4e races and classes (though i do think the warlord will be a tough sell in core for pre 4e fans). But this edition is going to be something of a reaction to 4e. The danger of that is they will go to far. I do think 4e was a reaction to 3e and went too farl when fourth ediiton was planned, I was excited because some of the balance issues and the emphasis on system mastery/optimization was bothering mel so I was very open to a more contained system. But 4e was so different, so focused on parity, and had so many parts that messed with my style, tthat I couldn't get into it. So while they should take a lesson from the excesses of 4e, perhaps where I agree with you is that lesson shouldn't be used to excuse the excesses of prior editions (i.e. 4e is too focused on balance, so any balance is bad). [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Realism vs. Believability and the Design of HPs, Powers and Other Things
Top