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
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions
4E: The day the game ate the roleplayer?
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="Derro" data-source="post: 4088216" data-attributes="member: 51010"><p>I don't know why you guys are hacking. This seems like a pretty relevant point to me. I think that the transparency of balance is an important issue. Take the roles that are fulfilled by the party, striker, defender, etc. (forgive me, I can't remember the other two). Each one of those roles is fulfilled by two classes I believe. And it's a balance thing. They are things that need to get done in a party that is the complete package.</p><p></p><p>But why are they defined by class? Classes are by definition a role anyway. Do we need to get a finer grain than this. I'll use 3e as an example, not because I'm lauding the virtues of 3e over 4e but because it's a common language. </p><p></p><p>In 3e the rogue could fill a multitude of party roles and often did. They could be a face-man, a second tier combatant, a utility belt, a knowledge skill monkey, an so on. Now in 4e they are a striker. Which is not to say they are incapable of these other things only that they are built to be a striker and strike they shall with all other options being secondary at best. </p><p></p><p>So to continue the point of the OP, while we are given the supposition that our characters in 4e will have lots of options it seems to me they have these options only within the boundary of their prescribed role.</p><p></p><p>I'm sure a lot of you are thinking, "If you don't want to fight don't play a fighter," or whatever the case is and that is totally valid. What isn't valid is this illusion of versatility. When characters are only capable of filling that one role there is no versatility. No newness. Just the same old tricks with a different package.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Again, relevant. Maybe not as coherent as intended but relevant. Predictability is the bane of exciting gaming. Class balance institutes predictability. And now you're thinking, "Did this jack-ass just say he prefers unbalanced classes?" It may have sounded like it but no. What I am saying is that cut and dried class balance formulated to fulfill roles will lead to less spontaneous and interesting characters. If you have 3 choices, A, B, and C and they all have the same potency of effect, whatever the effect may be, you're doing little more than choosing a color.</p><p></p><p>This is all part of the design plan from what I understand. Re-reading the preview materials I see the quote,</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>which in and of itself is great. But it also implies the mirror, no accidental discoveries that truly rawk. Which to some may mean no cheesy exploits. And I'll take that. But it's symptomatic of the player not the game.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I don't really agree with this 100%, the high-lit part anyway. I think that this sentiment is more illustrative of the evolution of the game. Earlier editions were much more narrativist than gamist right out of the box. I make no claim on which is better. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I have no idea because I haven't played the full game. I've got only the information I've gleaned from this site and it's posters (pro, con, and in between) but this is a genuine concern for me. I'm worried that for all its balance and smoothness and playability that 4e is going to lose its shine faster than the previous editions. Call me a skeptic or a doomsayer if you will but my gut rarely points me in the wrong direction.</p><p></p><p>If everybody else enjoys it that's great but gamers like myself may be disappointed.</p><p></p><p>I'd really like to get all this speculation over with. It's like taking an STI test after that drunken night at your brother-in-laws bachelor party.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Derro, post: 4088216, member: 51010"] I don't know why you guys are hacking. This seems like a pretty relevant point to me. I think that the transparency of balance is an important issue. Take the roles that are fulfilled by the party, striker, defender, etc. (forgive me, I can't remember the other two). Each one of those roles is fulfilled by two classes I believe. And it's a balance thing. They are things that need to get done in a party that is the complete package. But why are they defined by class? Classes are by definition a role anyway. Do we need to get a finer grain than this. I'll use 3e as an example, not because I'm lauding the virtues of 3e over 4e but because it's a common language. In 3e the rogue could fill a multitude of party roles and often did. They could be a face-man, a second tier combatant, a utility belt, a knowledge skill monkey, an so on. Now in 4e they are a striker. Which is not to say they are incapable of these other things only that they are built to be a striker and strike they shall with all other options being secondary at best. So to continue the point of the OP, while we are given the supposition that our characters in 4e will have lots of options it seems to me they have these options only within the boundary of their prescribed role. I'm sure a lot of you are thinking, "If you don't want to fight don't play a fighter," or whatever the case is and that is totally valid. What isn't valid is this illusion of versatility. When characters are only capable of filling that one role there is no versatility. No newness. Just the same old tricks with a different package. Again, relevant. Maybe not as coherent as intended but relevant. Predictability is the bane of exciting gaming. Class balance institutes predictability. And now you're thinking, "Did this jack-ass just say he prefers unbalanced classes?" It may have sounded like it but no. What I am saying is that cut and dried class balance formulated to fulfill roles will lead to less spontaneous and interesting characters. If you have 3 choices, A, B, and C and they all have the same potency of effect, whatever the effect may be, you're doing little more than choosing a color. This is all part of the design plan from what I understand. Re-reading the preview materials I see the quote, which in and of itself is great. But it also implies the mirror, no accidental discoveries that truly rawk. Which to some may mean no cheesy exploits. And I'll take that. But it's symptomatic of the player not the game. I don't really agree with this 100%, the high-lit part anyway. I think that this sentiment is more illustrative of the evolution of the game. Earlier editions were much more narrativist than gamist right out of the box. I make no claim on which is better. I have no idea because I haven't played the full game. I've got only the information I've gleaned from this site and it's posters (pro, con, and in between) but this is a genuine concern for me. I'm worried that for all its balance and smoothness and playability that 4e is going to lose its shine faster than the previous editions. Call me a skeptic or a doomsayer if you will but my gut rarely points me in the wrong direction. If everybody else enjoys it that's great but gamers like myself may be disappointed. I'd really like to get all this speculation over with. It's like taking an STI test after that drunken night at your brother-in-laws bachelor party. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions
4E: The day the game ate the roleplayer?
Top