Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Herremann the Wise" data-source="post: 4684380" data-attributes="member: 11300">Hello Xechnao,I'll do my best to elaborate. As far as I see it, there have been several factors that have brought about a more co-operative element to the game:- Strictly defined roles: There is an in-built reliance that each of the roles have for each of the others. I like this mechanically speaking. However, a side effect is that it encourages optimization, which in itself is fine - I just wish that this was not strictly encouraged. If your character is not optimized, you're kind of letting the team down.- Hit Points Up; Damage per attack down. Getting rid of the one shot kill was important in terms of versus the players (for some). However, the introduction of minions so that the reverse could still happen (one shot kills on monsters) provides for many false situations. Great if you emphasize narrative play, not so much fun for simulationists. This means that most fights are simply attrition of hit points. Everyone gets a shot at the bad guy. I mean this is OK, but not great fun for me. There is not so much a turning point in a battle as much as a simple (and sometimes slow) accumulation of damage.- Characters all use the same action/powers system. This emphasizes Adventurer first, Role second and then Class third in order of importance of classification. While characters do not play the same (as others have claimed they do), I still don't think there is enough differentiation between them. I would have liked to have seen separate systems for martial/arcane/divine, rather than a Vancian-style system for all. While I don't like this, it is a (but not I think the only) solution to having certain characters dominate over the others. Now, everyone can contribute to all situations (which is kind of cool), but again, it seems to be centralizing this aspect of play. Everyone's good at most things. It's a little like painting with only blue-based colours. If you have a look at the Defenses of all the characters in the game I play in, they're all kind of the same (with the wizard funnily enough having both the highest AC as well as the second most number of hit points). This emphasis of the adventurer dabbling in wizardry, rather than the wizard dabbling in adventuring goes against my gaming ethos.- Over all of this has been the dominance of exception based design. Now in a game like Magic: the Gathering, this is of course very important so as there is a control on what can happen (and what can not happen). And I can see why they would want a stricter control over the D&D rules. But for me, this takes a little bit of colour out of the game - but potentially a lot of rules headaches too. By having hit points as the dominant currency, everything can be quickly explained, effects neatly and easily resolved. This makes things very simple. Again though for my preference, a little too simple. While a clear exceptions-based design makes the game run more smoothly, it equally limits or compresses certain mechanics into those already defined - regardless of how neat the fit is (or isn't). For example the saving throw system makes little to no sense from a simulationist perspective, but from a gamist perspective, it is clear, simple and easy to resolve.Now in terms of Rob Heinsoo, my understanding is that it is this strict exceptions-based approach (combined with a big swing away from simulationist play), that he has lead with in terms of design. I can't quote sources (aside from to say internet browsing, and podcast listening) - so maybe I should not emphasize this. But essentially, I'm trying to elaborate as requested. The bottom line is I enjoy D&D and 4E despite this. Maybe next time the pendulum will come back more towards the gaming style I enjoy - we'll see (but hopefully not too soon).Best RegardsHerremann the Wise</blockquote>

Verification