Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7460016" data-attributes="member: 996">Yeah, that was 'updated' away fairly quickly... doesn't ring a bell, which module was that?&nbsp;I'll believe it if I ever get there.&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />BA does seem like it should help keep things on an even keel, numerically, just like treadmill did (and 3e &amp; earlier very much didn't), but aside from that, it's very much like the other eds that broke down at high level.&nbsp; &nbsp;Nod. There's different ways to approach a game.&nbsp; If you approach 5e a certain way, it doesn't work.&nbsp; If you approach 4e that same way, it does work just fine, but you could concievably get the effect you describe. That's the thing I noticed when after playtesting for a while, I started running 5e 'for real.'&nbsp; In &quot;playtest mode,&quot; just torture-testing the rules and letting bad things happen when the rules said so, 5e, even the finished product, could be pretty ugly.&nbsp; But, when I reached back to my old AD&amp;D bag of tricks (no, not the one you pull random animals out of), I got 5e games that went swimmingly.&nbsp; When I then used those same techniques in 4e, they also worked nicely - maybe they weren't necessary, but they were still fun, for me (I'm not sure my players noticed or would have appreciated it if they did).&nbsp;I've played &amp; run them both, including lots of introductory games.&nbsp; The results I've seen have been pretty consistent:&nbsp; 4e was more accessible to genuinely-new players but downright toxic to some old &amp; returning players; 5e is much more acceptable the hard-core, familiar &amp; nostalgic for returning players, and unintuitive (to try to put it nicely) to new/casual players.&nbsp; But, 1e was even more confusing &amp; off-putting to new players, and it was a huge fad in the 80s.&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />&nbsp; So it works out.&nbsp;There were probably many reasons for the market failure of 4e (one of them being a minimum revenue goal for 'success' that 5e hasn't met, either, but, fortunatley, no longer needs to), and for the current stunning come-back of D&amp;D. None of them have anything, directly, to do with the relative merits of either as a game.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 7460016, member: 996"] Yeah, that was 'updated' away fairly quickly... doesn't ring a bell, which module was that? I'll believe it if I ever get there. ;) BA does seem like it should help keep things on an even keel, numerically, just like treadmill did (and 3e & earlier very much didn't), but aside from that, it's very much like the other eds that broke down at high level. Nod. There's different ways to approach a game. If you approach 5e a certain way, it doesn't work. If you approach 4e that same way, it does work just fine, but you could concievably get the effect you describe. That's the thing I noticed when after playtesting for a while, I started running 5e 'for real.' In "playtest mode," just torture-testing the rules and letting bad things happen when the rules said so, 5e, even the finished product, could be pretty ugly. But, when I reached back to my old AD&D bag of tricks (no, not the one you pull random animals out of), I got 5e games that went swimmingly. When I then used those same techniques in 4e, they also worked nicely - maybe they weren't necessary, but they were still fun, for me (I'm not sure my players noticed or would have appreciated it if they did). I've played & run them both, including lots of introductory games. The results I've seen have been pretty consistent: 4e was more accessible to genuinely-new players but downright toxic to some old & returning players; 5e is much more acceptable the hard-core, familiar & nostalgic for returning players, and unintuitive (to try to put it nicely) to new/casual players. But, 1e was even more confusing & off-putting to new players, and it was a huge fad in the 80s. ;) So it works out. There were probably many reasons for the market failure of 4e (one of them being a minimum revenue goal for 'success' that 5e hasn't met, either, but, fortunatley, no longer needs to), and for the current stunning come-back of D&D. None of them have anything, directly, to do with the relative merits of either as a game. [/QUOTE]

Verification