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 LIVE! 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
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
A difficult question
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="jsaving" data-source="post: 5982156" data-attributes="member: 16726"><p>Your question presupposes that sacrifices are needed, and I'm not actually convinced that they are.</p><p></p><p>If you visit sites like rpgnet, for example, what you see is a strongly held view that 3e/Pathfinder fans want a highly complex and unbalanced system that discourages teamwork. To them, "compromise" in Next would mean accepting needless complexity and vast power differences between classes and races and spells in the name of unifying the fan base, which they for the most part aren't willing to countenance.</p><p></p><p>At comparable 3e/Pathfinder-friendly sites, what you see is a strongly held view that 4e fans want a simplistic Diablo-type game that jettisons history and flavor to provide bland and overly similar classes, powers, etc. To them, "compromise" in Next would mean a needless dumbing-down of the system and a continued aping of MMORPGs in the name of unifying the fan base, which they for the most part aren't willing to accept.</p><p></p><p>I'm not convinced either view is correct. As somebody who plays and enjoys both 4e and 3e/Pathfinder, I think 4e is better-balanced, but this came at a cost: a rigid standardization that makes classes, powers, etc far more similar than they need to be. (The ways in which 4e achieved greater simplicity and a greater emphasis on teamwork came at a cost, too.) So I think many of the objections lodged against 4e really have more to do with the way in which 4e achieved its stated objectives of balance/simplicity/teamwork than with the objectives themselves, leading to misunderstandings on both sides about who wants what and why.</p><p></p><p>Balance can be achieved without rigid standardization. Streamlining can be accomplished without becoming simplistic. Teamwork can be fostered without an intense focus on minis and battlemats. And if all of these things are done, Next can potentially represent an improvement to 3e/Pathfinder and 4e fans alike.</p><p></p><p>What we shouldn't do is weigh how much less balance we're willing to accept to attract the 3e/Pathfinder community, or how much of a dumbing-down we'll endure to retain the 4e community. Those are false choices based on stereotypes rather than reality, in my view at least.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="jsaving, post: 5982156, member: 16726"] Your question presupposes that sacrifices are needed, and I'm not actually convinced that they are. If you visit sites like rpgnet, for example, what you see is a strongly held view that 3e/Pathfinder fans want a highly complex and unbalanced system that discourages teamwork. To them, "compromise" in Next would mean accepting needless complexity and vast power differences between classes and races and spells in the name of unifying the fan base, which they for the most part aren't willing to countenance. At comparable 3e/Pathfinder-friendly sites, what you see is a strongly held view that 4e fans want a simplistic Diablo-type game that jettisons history and flavor to provide bland and overly similar classes, powers, etc. To them, "compromise" in Next would mean a needless dumbing-down of the system and a continued aping of MMORPGs in the name of unifying the fan base, which they for the most part aren't willing to accept. I'm not convinced either view is correct. As somebody who plays and enjoys both 4e and 3e/Pathfinder, I think 4e is better-balanced, but this came at a cost: a rigid standardization that makes classes, powers, etc far more similar than they need to be. (The ways in which 4e achieved greater simplicity and a greater emphasis on teamwork came at a cost, too.) So I think many of the objections lodged against 4e really have more to do with the way in which 4e achieved its stated objectives of balance/simplicity/teamwork than with the objectives themselves, leading to misunderstandings on both sides about who wants what and why. Balance can be achieved without rigid standardization. Streamlining can be accomplished without becoming simplistic. Teamwork can be fostered without an intense focus on minis and battlemats. And if all of these things are done, Next can potentially represent an improvement to 3e/Pathfinder and 4e fans alike. What we shouldn't do is weigh how much less balance we're willing to accept to attract the 3e/Pathfinder community, or how much of a dumbing-down we'll endure to retain the 4e community. Those are false choices based on stereotypes rather than reality, in my view at least. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
A difficult question
Top