Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Remathilis" data-source="post: 4525412" data-attributes="member: 7635">I agree, and for the life of me cannot figure out if this is good or not.Fourth edition introduced a lot of good concepts, but I think it ultimately lacked something in execution. They got a lot of things right, and much of their ideas had noble intentions (replacing rarely-used and poorly defined concepts with new, revamped alternatives) but in the process of revamping and "fixing" everything the smoothed out the quirks that gave the system character. Take a case-in-point: alignment. The nine alignments are synonymous with D&D (yes, I know BECMI used 3 alignments) to the point of it being part of the brand (I'm sure more than a few people would get a reference to Chaotic Evil, even if they weren't hardcore D&D players). However, alignment was never used satisfactorily; no matter how hard the designers tried, they never got people to agree what the alignments meant. This grew worse when game-mechanics became tied to alignment (paladins, smite evil, druidic neutrality). Sensibly, alignment needed some fixing and that's what they did. They removed game-mechanics from alignment, untethered classes from it, and removed "neutrality" as a concept to come up with five decently defined alignments. However, in doing so, some of the wonky charm alignment had was lost. For some, that is no loss. For others, its a symbol of D&D's change from LG paladins N Druids, and CG rangers facing LE demons and CN Slaad.Third edition attempted to bridge the gap by keeping some of the wonky nostalgia even as the game changed around it. Vancian casting (heck, the spells per day table!), 9 alignments, the Great Wheel, Greyhawk, half-orcs, Bards, Monks, and Bronze Dragons. Sure, saved changed and AC went upwards, and many spells looked different, but I could take a 5th level elven mage in 1e and make him a 5th level elven mage in 3e and they would look roughly the same. In 4e, this is no longer true. He has more hp, a different magic system, healing surges, different racial traits, etc. In a vacuum, all of the 4e changes are good and justified. Each fixes a common complaint players have had (not all players, but a large group) but it almost feels like too many cooks in the kitchen; by the time their done, you have Quiche Lorraine when all you wanted was bacon & eggs. Perhaps 4e went too far. Perhaps they did everything right, but by doing so lost anyway. The whole is larger than the sum of its parts; perhaps some of those god-awful game elements like alignment or Vancian casting defined D&D more than any are willing to discuss. Those who love 4e will no doubt disagree, and they are also right. 4e players smoother and is better balanced (and easier to run) than any edition of D&D before it. There are some great ideas in it others would consider very "un-D&D" (like dragon-men or PC half-fiends). But it has lost some of those "sacred cows" that defined D&D to others. Logically, it made sense to change them. Emotionally...I'm not knocking 4e, I run it and play it. But it feels different; much different than the D&D I ran in 2e or 3e. Not better, not worse, different. Perhaps too different for me. I enjoy it, but there is something, deep inside me that feels a sense of loss for all those annoying sub-systems, alignment arguments, and fire and forget magic spells.Maybe its that sense that is bringing people "home" to older D&D?</blockquote>

Verification