Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Reynard" data-source="post: 3976195" data-attributes="member: 467">There's nothing wrong with that, in general, despite the fact that I think parity in combat should not be a goal in a game built around archetypes.  That's hardly my biggest problem with 4E, though, and I can see why, especially from a player's perspective, it is seen as a "good thing".However, it should be noted that WotC has given ua almost exclusively combat related previews.  Even those previews that are about fluff end up including little sections on how totally awesome the combat against creature x/while playing race or class Y will be.  Will 4E be any more or less combat focused than any other edition?  No way to tell.  But it does seem that way, given the nature of the previews.What I do know, though, is that design with the encounter as the central aspect, as the basic unit of fun, will lead to design that forces parity where it doesn't need to exist.  Letting PCs of a certain type shine in certain kinds of situations is a good thing and doesn't ruin the balance of fun when you are taking an adventure as a whole as the basic unit of fun.  An encounter with powerful, incorporeal undead giving the cleric a moment to shine while the other PCs try not to die isn't "unfun"; having a magical duel between a PC wizard and an NPC witch while the other PCs do little more than mop up mooks isn't "unfun"; letting the rogue fully explore a complex web of traps and locks while the other PCs hold torches isn't "unfun"; creating an encounter where the fighter shines through massive physical violence while the other PCs have to deal with their less than awesome BABs isn't "unfun -- so long as situations like these all exist in a given adventure.  I don't know about anyone else, but watching my fellow players feel awesome and special is fun, and more to the point, I can manage to create my own fun through roleplaying my character and doing what I can to contribute even if I am not the spotlight character or I don't have much to do in the way of mechanics.D&D is storytelling: not in the sense that the DM should be telling the players a story, but in the sense that stories naturally emerge from play.  It doesn't matter so much if those stories end with a group of mouldering corpses on the third level of the Dungeon of Doom or with a set of Young Gods who managed to be so great that they ascended to immortality.  The whole spectrum is cool when you sit down with a couple beers and everyoen starts talking about last week's/month's/year's/decade's game.  And part of those emergent stories are the moments when the characters involved did their thing, got to shine and took center stage.  It happens in every kind of ensemble entertainment and D&D is no different.It's not a beer and pretzles game that we play for a couple hours of monster bashing.  It is, and always has been, more than that.  The very fact of continuity inherent in the system -- character levelling, for the most basic example -- tells us that the game is more.  That's why it is niche.I don't know if I would like 4E or not, but I do know that the combination of the previews we've seen and the general attitude of thsoe that argue most vehemently in favor of whatever random change WotC throws at us make me fairly certain I am not going to bother trying (so long as I can still find a group to play one of the various previous editions I have on my shelf).  WotC has done a "good" enough job with their re-imagining of D&D -- or at least their previews of such -- that it is the *only* version of the game that is likely to not find a place on my bookshelf.  That has to say something.</blockquote>

Verification