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
*TTRPGs General
What Did You Want Fourth Edition to be Like?
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="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 4687068" data-attributes="member: 18280"><p>As a quick reply, there are probably as many things that I like about 4e as there are things that I dislike, but the things that I dislike loom large enough to greatly damage my enjoyment of the game. I find myself in the same position with Pathfinder.</p><p></p><p>Prior to all of the 4e discussions, my goals for designing a "fouth edition" were very different, and my house rules reflected that. Essentially, I (like Pathfinder) took 3e <em><strong>even farther</strong></em> in the direction that it was going. Lots and lots of options, a certain degree of power creep, and fixing a few thorny issues (Turn Undead, for example).</p><p></p><p>It was only in discussing the changes that WotC was previewing that I began to see that this direction is not a good one for me. I began to see better why earlier editions were written as they were, how the "wonky" parts sometimes prevented bigger problems from arising, and how a degree of randomness, and a degree of imbalance -- <em><strong>allowing the players to strive for/strive to break balance, either through a simulationist or a gamist approach</strong></em> -- creates more "fun" than perfect balance.</p><p></p><p>RCFG (see sig) will be something along the lines of the 4e I would have liked to see.</p><p></p><p>The direction WotC took would be significantly improved, IMHO, if the metric for character success had been "the adventuring day" rather than "the single combat". As an example of this, the fey in 3e are well designed to represent fey, and therefore challenges other than combat challenges. This was a vast improvement over TSR-D&D IMHO, where monsters were all more combat-oriented simply because of the way the rules defaulted. We are now back to that default. Combat IMHO should be fast, interesting, inventive, and not require a grid. If anything, 4e accentuates the worst of 3e's combat design (IMHO). I find the tactical grid simulator boring in comparison to TSR-D&D. In 3e, the compensation was that the grid was only a small part of a much larger game. In 4e, not so much so as I'd like.</p><p></p><p>YMMV, of course. </p><p></p><p>I also find that "devise crunch, and add flavour afterwards" has created numerous problems for my ability to willingly suspend disbelief in the game world. Again, YMMV. I would have liked the crunch to model the fluff, rather than the other way around.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>RC</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Raven Crowking, post: 4687068, member: 18280"] As a quick reply, there are probably as many things that I like about 4e as there are things that I dislike, but the things that I dislike loom large enough to greatly damage my enjoyment of the game. I find myself in the same position with Pathfinder. Prior to all of the 4e discussions, my goals for designing a "fouth edition" were very different, and my house rules reflected that. Essentially, I (like Pathfinder) took 3e [i][b]even farther[/b][/i][b][/b] in the direction that it was going. Lots and lots of options, a certain degree of power creep, and fixing a few thorny issues (Turn Undead, for example). It was only in discussing the changes that WotC was previewing that I began to see that this direction is not a good one for me. I began to see better why earlier editions were written as they were, how the "wonky" parts sometimes prevented bigger problems from arising, and how a degree of randomness, and a degree of imbalance -- [i][b]allowing the players to strive for/strive to break balance, either through a simulationist or a gamist approach[/b][/i][b][/b] -- creates more "fun" than perfect balance. RCFG (see sig) will be something along the lines of the 4e I would have liked to see. The direction WotC took would be significantly improved, IMHO, if the metric for character success had been "the adventuring day" rather than "the single combat". As an example of this, the fey in 3e are well designed to represent fey, and therefore challenges other than combat challenges. This was a vast improvement over TSR-D&D IMHO, where monsters were all more combat-oriented simply because of the way the rules defaulted. We are now back to that default. Combat IMHO should be fast, interesting, inventive, and not require a grid. If anything, 4e accentuates the worst of 3e's combat design (IMHO). I find the tactical grid simulator boring in comparison to TSR-D&D. In 3e, the compensation was that the grid was only a small part of a much larger game. In 4e, not so much so as I'd like. YMMV, of course. I also find that "devise crunch, and add flavour afterwards" has created numerous problems for my ability to willingly suspend disbelief in the game world. Again, YMMV. I would have liked the crunch to model the fluff, rather than the other way around. RC [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
What Did You Want Fourth Edition to be Like?
Top