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="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 5993466" data-attributes="member: 87792"><p>Or unless people say "because things exist in the game that I don't want I consider it to be a bad game that breaks my enjoyment if anyone takes them." I think you were saying that several pages ago.</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>4e's options for scholarly bookish casters beat the crap out of older editions'. This is due to the Ritual/Combat magic split. And that you can take along actual non-combatants who do little more than scream or hide - and still contribute fully to combat while having a versatile spell array for solving problems. If I want a scholarly, bookish caster in 4e I probably go for a Lazy Warlord with Ritual Caster who plans and organises the battle but doesn't carry more than a staff himself.</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>So do 4e classes. However Vancian Wizardry makes no sense to <em>me</em>.</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>Those are not character concepts. Simple fighter is a metagame concept. 4e even at launch had "fighter who rushes forward wielding a large weapon and hits things until they stop moving." That's a character concept. Now saying that the implementation could and should have been simpler is another story.</p><p> </p><p>Now if you were to say that at launch 4e didn't have a viable <em>Illusionist</em> I'd agree with you. It wasn't complete at launch. On the other hand no other D&D edition has ever managed the 'Shield bully' style of fighter where the fighter gets in the enemy's face, forcing them back by strength, technique, foootwork, and sword and shieldwork, while trying to kill them. (PF comes closest with its shield slam - but that isn't the same thing at all).</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>No it didn't. It reallocated who had the focus - away from the mages. It simulates heroic fantasy - rather than being either a hacked tabletop wargame or a simulation of D&D.</p><p> </p><p>Simulationist is not the same as Process-Sim. And D&D has <em>always</em> sucked at process-sim anyway.</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>Because it's an incoherent concept that only appeals to people who don't understand 4e and who want to make out that D&D is simulationist. The correlation in my experience appears to be near 100% between people praising 3.X for simulationism and those who think 4e is dissasociated. </p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>Because a 6d6 fireball was an example from 1e rather than 4e? It's a hacked tabletop wargame.</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>In short you are making up terms. Process-sim is simulating the process.</p><p> </p><p>In my experience the core problem people have with so-called dissassociated mechanics is that it actually makes them think about what is actually happening. Rather than just rolling or just describing independently of the rules of the game, never mind what the rules actually say is happening.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Neonchameleon, post: 5993466, member: 87792"] Or unless people say "because things exist in the game that I don't want I consider it to be a bad game that breaks my enjoyment if anyone takes them." I think you were saying that several pages ago. 4e's options for scholarly bookish casters beat the crap out of older editions'. This is due to the Ritual/Combat magic split. And that you can take along actual non-combatants who do little more than scream or hide - and still contribute fully to combat while having a versatile spell array for solving problems. If I want a scholarly, bookish caster in 4e I probably go for a Lazy Warlord with Ritual Caster who plans and organises the battle but doesn't carry more than a staff himself. So do 4e classes. However Vancian Wizardry makes no sense to [I]me[/I]. Those are not character concepts. Simple fighter is a metagame concept. 4e even at launch had "fighter who rushes forward wielding a large weapon and hits things until they stop moving." That's a character concept. Now saying that the implementation could and should have been simpler is another story. Now if you were to say that at launch 4e didn't have a viable [I]Illusionist[/I] I'd agree with you. It wasn't complete at launch. On the other hand no other D&D edition has ever managed the 'Shield bully' style of fighter where the fighter gets in the enemy's face, forcing them back by strength, technique, foootwork, and sword and shieldwork, while trying to kill them. (PF comes closest with its shield slam - but that isn't the same thing at all). No it didn't. It reallocated who had the focus - away from the mages. It simulates heroic fantasy - rather than being either a hacked tabletop wargame or a simulation of D&D. Simulationist is not the same as Process-Sim. And D&D has [I]always[/I] sucked at process-sim anyway. Because it's an incoherent concept that only appeals to people who don't understand 4e and who want to make out that D&D is simulationist. The correlation in my experience appears to be near 100% between people praising 3.X for simulationism and those who think 4e is dissasociated. Because a 6d6 fireball was an example from 1e rather than 4e? It's a hacked tabletop wargame. In short you are making up terms. Process-sim is simulating the process. In my experience the core problem people have with so-called dissassociated mechanics is that it actually makes them think about what is actually happening. Rather than just rolling or just describing independently of the rules of the game, never mind what the rules actually say is happening. [/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