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
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
[Very Long] Combat as Sport vs. Combat as War: a Key Difference in D&D Play Styles...
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: 5808019" data-attributes="member: 996"><p>I think D&D, though doing so slowly, had been improving over it's various editions. AD&D was more ambitious than 0D&D, 2e refined AD&D and improved production values, 3e made a real stab at modernizing the game, roughly balanced it at single-digit levels, and took the bold step of going open source. 4e further improved over 3e.</p><p></p><p>Seemingly, a perfectly desireable state of afairs...</p><p></p><p>I do know that. And I am totally OK with it. Indeed, I'm an older gamer myself, and have my first loves from the olden days. I adore 1st ed Gamma World, even though I recognize that it's a terrible game by modern standards, and a pretty marginal one even by the standards of 1978 (that did have it competing with RuneQuest, afterall). </p><p></p><p>I don't go around trying to tell people that it's /better/ than later, more refined, better executed versions of the game. (Though, nothing could be quite as bad as the 3rd ed...)</p><p></p><p>The OP just made up 'CaW' a little bit ago.</p><p> </p><p>Kudos to you for admiting an actual dislike of balance. That actually heads off a lot of back-and-forth we might otherwise have.</p><p></p><p>Here's were we get into the problem areas. There's opinion, and there's misrepresentation.</p><p></p><p>4e did not take resource management out of the game. Far from it, there are still dailies, more broadly in fact, and in addition to hps and healing there are surges to manage, there are still one-shot items like potions, and there's an extra layer of resource management in encounter powers. </p><p></p><p>Consistent mechanics do not take away flavor. Again, far from it, they allow the game to cover a much broader range of possible flavors without unecessary complexity. Your claim of similar mechanics robbing flavor is doubly bogus, because common mechanics have always been in use. In 1e, shocking grasp, for instance, did 1d8+n damage. So did a scimitar. They were not the same, even though they shared that mechanic. </p><p></p><p>The wizard still uses recognizeably Vancian magic. In fact, the wizard's dailies are a bit closer to the magic of the Dying Earth than they ever have been, since they don't memorize rediculous numbers of them at high level. </p><p></p><p>Warriors are not spellcasters - 'essentially' or otherwise. They are merely no longer inferior to casters. Martial characters use expoits. Wizards use spells. Attack exploits are virtually always weapon powers - and /never/ implement powers. Attack spells are virtually always implement power. Attack exploits typicaly do untyped damage, or damage based on the weapon. Attack spells do a whole range of typed damages. The mechanical difference, alone are significant. The similarities are only significant in terms of balance. In terms of flavor/fluff or concept, they're meaningless.</p><p></p><p>By all means, feel free to express your opinions about 4e class balance and your preferences and opinions. But do not say that 4e classes are the same, that fighters cast spells, or that wizard's don't prepare spells. Because those statements are false.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Sure, part of balance, which you don't like. No problem.</p><p></p><p>Actually, with all the racial feats and powers 4e introduced, the differences among races were probably a little greater than in 4e. PC races. Not LA races, that is.</p><p></p><p>Yep, and once again, feel free to go on in that vein all you like. You'll get no argument from me. 4e takes a very different direction in what it's trying to model or simulate. 3e modeled an internally consistent world in which the elements of fantasy stories might exist (and, once in a blue moon, the story of a PC party might even end up resembling one, slightly, if the dice were being really crazy). 4e modeled the story rather than the world. In most fantasy stories, most of the heroes don't die meaningless deaths at 1st level (whatever '1st level' would be in a narrative...). Different aproach, different results, different preferences. No bearing on how good a game either one is (was).</p><p></p><p>3 years. It hasn't even been 4 yet. They've also had those 3 years to get their facts straight.</p><p></p><p>Aparently, if done often enough, stridently enough, viciously enough, and combined with a veritable boycott, it can kill a 3-year-old edition of D&D for the first time in the history of the game.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 5808019, member: 996"] I think D&D, though doing so slowly, had been improving over it's various editions. AD&D was more ambitious than 0D&D, 2e refined AD&D and improved production values, 3e made a real stab at modernizing the game, roughly balanced it at single-digit levels, and took the bold step of going open source. 4e further improved over 3e. Seemingly, a perfectly desireable state of afairs... I do know that. And I am totally OK with it. Indeed, I'm an older gamer myself, and have my first loves from the olden days. I adore 1st ed Gamma World, even though I recognize that it's a terrible game by modern standards, and a pretty marginal one even by the standards of 1978 (that did have it competing with RuneQuest, afterall). I don't go around trying to tell people that it's /better/ than later, more refined, better executed versions of the game. (Though, nothing could be quite as bad as the 3rd ed...) The OP just made up 'CaW' a little bit ago. Kudos to you for admiting an actual dislike of balance. That actually heads off a lot of back-and-forth we might otherwise have. Here's were we get into the problem areas. There's opinion, and there's misrepresentation. 4e did not take resource management out of the game. Far from it, there are still dailies, more broadly in fact, and in addition to hps and healing there are surges to manage, there are still one-shot items like potions, and there's an extra layer of resource management in encounter powers. Consistent mechanics do not take away flavor. Again, far from it, they allow the game to cover a much broader range of possible flavors without unecessary complexity. Your claim of similar mechanics robbing flavor is doubly bogus, because common mechanics have always been in use. In 1e, shocking grasp, for instance, did 1d8+n damage. So did a scimitar. They were not the same, even though they shared that mechanic. The wizard still uses recognizeably Vancian magic. In fact, the wizard's dailies are a bit closer to the magic of the Dying Earth than they ever have been, since they don't memorize rediculous numbers of them at high level. Warriors are not spellcasters - 'essentially' or otherwise. They are merely no longer inferior to casters. Martial characters use expoits. Wizards use spells. Attack exploits are virtually always weapon powers - and /never/ implement powers. Attack spells are virtually always implement power. Attack exploits typicaly do untyped damage, or damage based on the weapon. Attack spells do a whole range of typed damages. The mechanical difference, alone are significant. The similarities are only significant in terms of balance. In terms of flavor/fluff or concept, they're meaningless. By all means, feel free to express your opinions about 4e class balance and your preferences and opinions. But do not say that 4e classes are the same, that fighters cast spells, or that wizard's don't prepare spells. Because those statements are false. Sure, part of balance, which you don't like. No problem. Actually, with all the racial feats and powers 4e introduced, the differences among races were probably a little greater than in 4e. PC races. Not LA races, that is. Yep, and once again, feel free to go on in that vein all you like. You'll get no argument from me. 4e takes a very different direction in what it's trying to model or simulate. 3e modeled an internally consistent world in which the elements of fantasy stories might exist (and, once in a blue moon, the story of a PC party might even end up resembling one, slightly, if the dice were being really crazy). 4e modeled the story rather than the world. In most fantasy stories, most of the heroes don't die meaningless deaths at 1st level (whatever '1st level' would be in a narrative...). Different aproach, different results, different preferences. No bearing on how good a game either one is (was). 3 years. It hasn't even been 4 yet. They've also had those 3 years to get their facts straight. Aparently, if done often enough, stridently enough, viciously enough, and combined with a veritable boycott, it can kill a 3-year-old edition of D&D for the first time in the history of the game. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
[Very Long] Combat as Sport vs. Combat as War: a Key Difference in D&D Play Styles...
Top