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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ratskinner" data-source="post: 6075033" data-attributes="member: 6688937">Well, I hope/think I can help de-baffle you. I see several factors being important here:First, 4e was initially presented (particularly online) as pretty finely engineered for balance, and that "messing with it" would surely break your game. Whether or not that's true in any absolute sense, the massive online debates about the expertise "feat taxes" over a +1-3 or so being utterly vital (and similar things about individual powers) don't serve to dissuade anyone from that notion.Secondly, the presentation/structure of 4e is quite a bit different from previous editions (at least at first glance) so any previous expertise you have seems less applicable. Combined with 4e's systematic advice that at times has the tone of "this is how you may alter the game or it will break" and I think its fairly easy to see how someone can get skittish about modifying 4e extensively. (Combine this with my next point.)Thirdly, 4e was a fairly drastic change in focus away from Simulationism, which is not clearly presented in 4e's first 3 books. I know that when I first started running 4e (from PHB1, DMG1, and MM1) I got absolutely no impression of the more Narrativist/Indie style that some of you around here run. (and FATE is my preferred rpg!) For people who are used to working in a Sim system, the transition to Gamist or Narrativist rules can be jarring and very difficult to see. If, as is indicated upthread, the initial presentation of 4e was  so poorly executed that it wasn't clearly sorted out until DMG2, you can  be certain that a lot of people (myself included) were already out of  4e by the time that came out.Fourthly, a great number (not fraction) of 4e fans online purport themselves as fairly traumatized by 3e's imbalances or "brokenness". It seems to me that they reflexively resent or reject any attempt to modify 4e in order to preserve its finely-tuned engine. I think this attitude became slightly contagious, especially in reaction to the edition wars. Modifying any of 4e's general principles was wrong, because doing so was a tacit admission that 4e might not be utterly perfect. (Aid and comfort to the enemy, so to speak.)  Fifthly, the AEDU presentation. I'm not trying to criticize it overall, however, it makes it inobvious (compared to previous edition structures) how to modify or create class functions. So, in previous editions, if you want to change say...spellcasting, you do that as a blanket modification of a few rules...not so AEDU. In 4e, that might mean anything from a simple "fluff" change to writing dozens of new powers. This is especially true since the initial presentation of 4e did a poor job of emphasizing the switch of powers/spells to metagame (as folks around here term it) structures. Which made it difficult for those raised on Sim to piece together how they should go about it. Yes, its in the rulebook, but it isn't really featured at all in any examples. (I dunno about in DMG2 or after.)So, yeah, maybe people do expect more handholding in 4e, and feel less confident about making modifications. However, I kinda see it as a result of the way the game was initially presented. I also suspect that people are less likely to feel confident about modifying non-Sim rules than they are with Sim rules (or rules they have convinced themselves are Sim). If I'm correct about that, then a lot of potential 4e house-rulers just don't feel like they "can" without breaking the game.</blockquote>

Verification