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
D&D Older Editions
4e needs a Definitive Guide
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="MoutonRustique" data-source="post: 6367911" data-attributes="member: 22362"><p>While I do agree about the general idea, I have to say that this approach usually ends up being fairly heavy. When you start to offer critiques of classes and more in-depth analysis, I feel it's putting the cart before the horse/mule/other cart pulling creature. (I see that is not what you offered, but it often builds up to it...)</p><p></p><p>I strongly feel that it is best to keep the first couple of interactions with the system as... <em>simple</em> is not the right word... <em>pain-free?</em> I hope my meaning gets across...</p><p></p><p>Perhaps offer both "vantages" : you want to play X-style character? Grab Y class, it rocks!</p><p></p><p>Other way around : a list of classes and a <em>very quick</em> (terse even) comment. Something like:</p><p><em><strong>Fighter</strong> - will be great at locking down a big foe and tends to deal pretty high damage. Can offer advanced tactical options.</em></p><p><em><strong>Paladin</strong> - will be great at locking down a single foe and can offer some healing and buffs to your fellow party members.</em></p><p><em><strong>Vampire</strong> - maybe hold out on this one as it requires some game mastery to be truly effective.</em></p><p></p><p>Perhaps a small paragraph stressing the option to ignore the class names?</p><p></p><p>I guess the main difference is the use of keyword types (or the non-use of) like role, etc. Those kinds of words are <em>great</em> once you get going, but <em>right at the start</em> they tend to feel like a new mechanic needing to be learned (as opposed to an informative label.) I tend to prefer people to play and <em>then</em> link the role with how the class plays as opposed to giving the definition first and then having people try to play that. The clarity and exhaustiveness of 4e can feel stifling to some - when they just play, the roles come out organically.</p><p></p><p>I guess, I do agree with you, I'm just weary of the implementation... I'm nitpicking really...</p><p></p><p>That is true (your rebuttal). My perspective was that, with a starting group, the difference in effectiveness might not even be apparent. But a list of "harder to use well" options would be a good idea - to avoid disappointment is a very, very good idea.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="MoutonRustique, post: 6367911, member: 22362"] While I do agree about the general idea, I have to say that this approach usually ends up being fairly heavy. When you start to offer critiques of classes and more in-depth analysis, I feel it's putting the cart before the horse/mule/other cart pulling creature. (I see that is not what you offered, but it often builds up to it...) I strongly feel that it is best to keep the first couple of interactions with the system as... [I]simple[/I] is not the right word... [I]pain-free?[/I] I hope my meaning gets across... Perhaps offer both "vantages" : you want to play X-style character? Grab Y class, it rocks! Other way around : a list of classes and a [I]very quick[/I] (terse even) comment. Something like: [I][B]Fighter[/B] - will be great at locking down a big foe and tends to deal pretty high damage. Can offer advanced tactical options. [B]Paladin[/B] - will be great at locking down a single foe and can offer some healing and buffs to your fellow party members. [B]Vampire[/B] - maybe hold out on this one as it requires some game mastery to be truly effective.[/I] Perhaps a small paragraph stressing the option to ignore the class names? I guess the main difference is the use of keyword types (or the non-use of) like role, etc. Those kinds of words are [I]great[/I] once you get going, but [I]right at the start[/I] they tend to feel like a new mechanic needing to be learned (as opposed to an informative label.) I tend to prefer people to play and [i]then[/i] link the role with how the class plays as opposed to giving the definition first and then having people try to play that. The clarity and exhaustiveness of 4e can feel stifling to some - when they just play, the roles come out organically. I guess, I do agree with you, I'm just weary of the implementation... I'm nitpicking really... That is true (your rebuttal). My perspective was that, with a starting group, the difference in effectiveness might not even be apparent. But a list of "harder to use well" options would be a good idea - to avoid disappointment is a very, very good idea. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions
4e needs a Definitive Guide
Top