D&D 4E D&D Fluff Wars: 4e vs 5e

[Tony Vargas]

Heh. I 4venged with the best of 'em. I'm always ready to defend D&D if I think a criticism is unfounded.

I've also never been shy about acknowledging valid criticisms.

 

[Parmandur]

Heh. I 4venged with the best of 'em. I'm always ready to defend D&D if I think a criticism is unfounded.

Yeah, apologies for any offense; O have seen you self-describe that way before, and I was under the impression you were being mistaken for anti-4E sentiments, far from the truth.

 

[Aldarc]

I also find ancient myth and religion fascinatin and have studied it extensively: if I wanted realism on that front, I'd be playing Runequest, not D&D (I'd be open to playing some RQ, mind you, but I don't for whatever reason).

The silliness of the Great Wheel may not be a draw for you, but it is apparently for most. WotC went out of their way to acknowledge the World Axis schema in the DMG, but given limited space they had to focus mainly on what folks want.

Perhaps I am mistaking you, but your post seems to have a veiled hostility towards mine.I hope you're not implying that if I prefer the World Axis or something that better reflects mythical cosmologies that I should play something other than D&D. I am merely stating my preference for the World Axis and general disdain of the Great Wheel, regardless of what "it is apparently for" the ambiguous "most" to whom you allude. This is not a thread for edition warring, but for expressing preferred fluff, as I did.

 

[Parmandur]

Perhaps I am mistaking you, but your post seems to have a veiled hostility towards mine.I hope you're not implying that if I prefer the World Axis or something that better reflects mythical cosmologies that I should play something other than D&D. I am merely stating my preference for the World Axis and general disdain of the Great Wheel, regardless of what "it is apparently for" the ambiguous "most" to whom you allude. This is not a thread for edition warring, but for expressing preferred fluff, as I did.

Nah, no hostility: writing is a limited medium. Discussion seems, appropriate, given the nature of forums: exploring why the majority prefer the Great Wheel seems to be an interesting topic.

 

[TwoSix]

Nah, no hostility: writing is a limited medium. Discussion seems, appropriate, given the nature of forums: exploring why the majority prefer the Great Wheel seems to be an interesting topic.

Hot take: It's symmetry. People like symmetry, far more than was obvious when the 4e design maxim of "avoiding needless symmetry" was coined.

You don't have to look farther than the calls for a "martial controller" by plenty of people who did like 4e than to see how embedded the desire to see grids filled in and patterns matched up.

 

[Aldarc]

Nah, no hostility: writing is a limited medium. Discussion seems, appropriate, given the nature of forums: exploring why the majority prefer the Great Wheel seems to be an interesting topic.

Okay. I don't particularly find the question of "why" all that interesting, however. People have their different reasons: emotional attachment, symmetry, hatred of change, use in their campaign settings (whether homebrew or Planescape), sense of tradition or what constitutes D&D, love of the old alignment system, association of the World Axis with the much-maligned 4E, etc. People have their reasons for liking and disdaining things, and it's not really my place to put much weight into why. What matters most is that people can find something that they do like so that we can all have fun playing this hobby together.

 

[Parmandur]

Hot take: It's symmetry. People like symmetry, far more than was obvious when the 4e design maxim of "avoiding needless symmetry" was coined.

You don't have to look farther than the calls for a "martial controller" by plenty of people who did like 4e than to see how embedded the desire to see grids filled in and patterns matched up.

Part of it, though the avoid symmetry but was introduced in 3.x: 4E's fluff changes were definitely rooted in the philosophy towards world design at WotC in the 3.x era, which was out of sync with the fan base.

 

[TwoSix]

Part of it, though the avoid symmetry but was introduced in 3.x: 4E's fluff changes were definitely rooted in the philosophy towards world design at WotC in the 3.x era, which was out of sync with the fan base.

Interesting. I've read most of the 3.X era stuff, can you list some examples?

 

[Tony Vargas]

Hot take: It's symmetry. People like symmetry, far more than was obvious when the 4e design maxim of "avoiding needless symmetry" was coined.

When was that coined? Because 4e had a lotta symmetry and 'grid-filling.' /Except/ in it's cosmology.

You don't have to look farther than the calls for a "martial controller" by plenty of people who did like 4e than to see how embedded the desire to see grids filled in and patterns matched up.

Yeah. That symmetry wasn't 'needless.'

Heck, 5e doesn't have formal roles anymore, but it still has at least as many informal say, 'areas of contribution,' as D&D has ever had - and all but one or two can only be adequately provided by casters. So that sort of need remains, even if it's not for any kind of symmetry.

 

[TwoSix]

When was that coined? Because 4e had a lotta symmetry and 'grid-filling.' /Except/ in it's cosmology.

It's a quote from Worlds and Monsters, I believe.