Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 4285093" data-attributes="member: 2067">No, I said that 4e was weaker at supporting these specific things than 3e, in response to the assertion that 4e is actually more of a toolbox than I'm giving it credit for (specifically that it makes it easy to tinker with). 4e certainly can be tinkered with, but 3e was, on the whole, more open to tinkering, specifically because it supported a broader range of possible play styles, in order to fully embrace as many outlying players as it could, thus reflecting its nature as "quintessential" D&D in a way that 4e has no interested in being.Of course, that isn't really what I'm talking about, regardless of how accurate it is or is not. The discussion is about, AFAIK, divergent points between 4e and 3e in the basic design and philosophy of the game. It is my contention that one of these is that 3e was designed more to be an inclusive toolbox than 4e is, because 4e is designed more to be playable out of the box than 3e was.If you don't disagree with that, then we don't have a whole lot of relevant conversation to have.If you DO disagree with that, I'm presenting several handfuls of laundry lists of things that 4e doesn't have interest in giving me rules for that 3e did have an interest in giving me rules for. In fact, I'll even set this off in order to emphasize it. <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/m.gif"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":melee:" title="Melee    :melee:" data-shortname=":melee:" />  <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/m.gif"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":melee:" title="Melee    :melee:" data-shortname=":melee:" />  <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/m.gif"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":melee:" title="Melee    :melee:" data-shortname=":melee:" /> Because the move from toolkit to ready-to-play is a continuum, not a binary solution, I don't really have to show that 4e isn't interested at all in being a toolkit, nor do I have to show that 3e did a good job of accomplishing rules for being a good toolkit. All I have to show is that 3e was interested in giving me more diversity than 4e is, at the launch. Heck, if we can even agree on one thing that 3e tried to give players at the beginning that 4e does not even try to give, I have shown the intent.Chaotic Neutral Half-Orc Druids.4e doesn't want this at launch. 3e did. This shows that in at least this area, 3e was more concerned with supporting fans of this thing than 4e is. Why did 3e want it? Because some people liked to play with it, and 3e wanted to give people the tools to run the D&D they liked. Why doesn't 4e care about those people? Because there probably aren't very many of them, and other considerations [ickiness, wild shape complexity, alignment simplifying] took precedence over the fact that some minority liked them, partially because those other considerations might be able to win them over despite their affection for the discarded thing.Is it worth it? Depends on how important those things (or any of the other things that 3e gave you that 4e does not) are to you. If they are important, you're going to feel angry and abandoned because suddenly it will get much harder to play that, because the world's most popular RPG won't be supporting that out of the gate, if ever.  <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/m.gif"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":melee:" title="Melee    :melee:" data-shortname=":melee:" />  <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/m.gif"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":melee:" title="Melee    :melee:" data-shortname=":melee:" />  <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/m.gif"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":melee:" title="Melee    :melee:" data-shortname=":melee:" /> Replace Chaotic Neutral Half-Orc Druids with anything, anything from the vast galaxy of things that 4e has chosen to ditch in favor of its own design goals. Whatever your opinion on 4e, I'm not sure you can cogently argue that 4e has ditched nothing. Replace it with "Evil Campaigns."Replace it with "Monster PC's."Replace it with "Firearms."Anything, anything at all that 3e had at launch that 4e lacks at launch. No matter what it is. All there needs to be is ONE THING, and 3e instantly becomes more diverse in comparison.Everything else is just getting lost in the analogies and specificities. I personally believe that WotC could have entertained the idea of supporting the outlying campaigns better at launch, if they had decided to. But they didn't. They had bigger fish to fry this time around, and I don't really blame them for it. I like 4e, but that doesn't mean that 4e is as good a toolkit as 3e is (though it might be Good Enough, and that's really the only threshold that really counts).</blockquote>

Verification