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
With Respect to the Door and Expectations....The REAL Reason 5e Can't Unite the Base
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="Hussar" data-source="post: 5993248" data-attributes="member: 22779"><p>See, there, right there, that's what I'm talking about. 4e is no more focused on a single playstyle than any other edition. You took me to task for criticising this, and then you turn around and do the exact same thing.</p><p></p><p>Put it this way. People have spent a great number of pixels telling all and sundry that their character concept doesn't work in 4e, thus 4e is a narrowing of playstyles.</p><p></p><p>Ok. Then answer me this. Using pre-4e mechanics, make my warlord. I want a character that had mechanics that allow it to actively control the tactics of the entire party during combat. I want a character that not only can buff, but, can go beyond that and control movement, attacks and incentivise targets over other targets.</p><p></p><p>But, that's the problem. You can't. Those mechanics simply do not exist in earlier editions. I know because I've been trying to create a warlord (I called it a tactician, but, the same idea) in D&D for well on twenty or thirty years. Generally it meant using bards, but, it still never actually hit the mark.</p><p></p><p>4e doesn't cater to a more narrow set of playstyles than any other edition. It caters strongly to <em>different</em> playstyles. That I'll totally agree with. And, once you get past people's rather idiosyncratic takes on various editions, you realize that those editions didn't really support their playstyle either, not until they beat it about the head and shoulders with a large mallet and added a boat load of understood and explicit houserules.</p><p></p><p>The difference is, until 4e, those of us who wanted these other mechanics were largely ignored. We started getting some of it in 2e, but, at least until 4e came out, 2e was the red-headed stepchild of D&D - hated by 1e grognards and derided by 3e fans.</p><p></p><p>So, no, 4e didn't narrow the play field. It simply recognized what's been there all along - a fairly strong segment of the gaming community that's been trying to do this sort of thing for years. Unfortunately, that has also managed to alienate a rather large segment of the D&D community who has dug in their heels and refused to even acknowledge that other playstyles have ever been part of the tradition of D&D. </p><p></p><p>Just like you said - all editions before 4e were one way and 4e the other. Thing is, pre-4e, the games were largely geared towards your playstyle and with 4e, it leans more strongly towards mine. The difference is, instead of simply adjusting to it and making the game work, which is what I've had to do for thirty years, people have drawn a very deep line in the sand and refused to budge.</p><p></p><p>It's ridiculous when you think about it. Adjusting 4e to do process sim is not exactly difficult. Adjust the healing rates, eject the warlord, insist that the flavor text for powers has actual meaning in game and thus must be satisfied before a power can be used, and probably stick to Essentials characters to avoid the whole Daily routine. Done. Because the math is so transparent, you can make these changes and it won't take you several sessions to work out the kinks.</p><p></p><p>That's the advantage of dissociated mechanics. You can make then associated quite easily. The reverse, unfortunately, is not true.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 5993248, member: 22779"] See, there, right there, that's what I'm talking about. 4e is no more focused on a single playstyle than any other edition. You took me to task for criticising this, and then you turn around and do the exact same thing. Put it this way. People have spent a great number of pixels telling all and sundry that their character concept doesn't work in 4e, thus 4e is a narrowing of playstyles. Ok. Then answer me this. Using pre-4e mechanics, make my warlord. I want a character that had mechanics that allow it to actively control the tactics of the entire party during combat. I want a character that not only can buff, but, can go beyond that and control movement, attacks and incentivise targets over other targets. But, that's the problem. You can't. Those mechanics simply do not exist in earlier editions. I know because I've been trying to create a warlord (I called it a tactician, but, the same idea) in D&D for well on twenty or thirty years. Generally it meant using bards, but, it still never actually hit the mark. 4e doesn't cater to a more narrow set of playstyles than any other edition. It caters strongly to [i]different[/i] playstyles. That I'll totally agree with. And, once you get past people's rather idiosyncratic takes on various editions, you realize that those editions didn't really support their playstyle either, not until they beat it about the head and shoulders with a large mallet and added a boat load of understood and explicit houserules. The difference is, until 4e, those of us who wanted these other mechanics were largely ignored. We started getting some of it in 2e, but, at least until 4e came out, 2e was the red-headed stepchild of D&D - hated by 1e grognards and derided by 3e fans. So, no, 4e didn't narrow the play field. It simply recognized what's been there all along - a fairly strong segment of the gaming community that's been trying to do this sort of thing for years. Unfortunately, that has also managed to alienate a rather large segment of the D&D community who has dug in their heels and refused to even acknowledge that other playstyles have ever been part of the tradition of D&D. Just like you said - all editions before 4e were one way and 4e the other. Thing is, pre-4e, the games were largely geared towards your playstyle and with 4e, it leans more strongly towards mine. The difference is, instead of simply adjusting to it and making the game work, which is what I've had to do for thirty years, people have drawn a very deep line in the sand and refused to budge. It's ridiculous when you think about it. Adjusting 4e to do process sim is not exactly difficult. Adjust the healing rates, eject the warlord, insist that the flavor text for powers has actual meaning in game and thus must be satisfied before a power can be used, and probably stick to Essentials characters to avoid the whole Daily routine. Done. Because the math is so transparent, you can make these changes and it won't take you several sessions to work out the kinks. That's the advantage of dissociated mechanics. You can make then associated quite easily. The reverse, unfortunately, is not true. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
With Respect to the Door and Expectations....The REAL Reason 5e Can't Unite the Base
Top