Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Pour" data-source="post: 5663296" data-attributes="member: 59411">Sorry Scribble, but you and that avatar make such a compelling villain! (Plus I think you're one of the few posters that can defend an opinion, build an argument, and concede a point if necessary.)In regards to what you said above, I still don't see dabbling or focusing equal time on past editions equating to the exploration of board games and cards in the scheme of 4e. The board games, to my understanding are paired down 4th edition rules given certain 'board game' mechanics. I remember hearing about simplified classes with the choices already made for players, card decks used for random monsters and puzzle tiles for randomly generated maps or at least a surprising fog of war. That to me feels innovative, not because it will be exactly ported over to the RPG, but because it took the rules chasis and pushed the design, in this case toward simplification and justifiably so, all while maintaining certain dangerous and uncertain aspects of exploring Castle Ravenloft- good design, good flavor, and what I imagine good production value. As you mentioned, I could definitely see kernels of rpg design popping from such usage of those board game rules, themes and production, and they largely feel more compatible with 4e. And the fortune cards are really just consumable boons, very much in 4th's realm, but also attempting to bring option decks into the mix. I know they get a lot of heat for it, but I've seen a lot of positive attention at game day and Encounters, as I'm sure there will be at Lair Assault. I don't think 'optional' is ever a bad thing, and I'd hardly call them rules bloat or power creep, despite the boons they provide, perhaps because of the shuffling/random element and the need for fortune decks to have a certain spread of cards, not all of which are so game-changing.Past editions, on the other hand, should inform 4e in a historical capacity, not a design capacity, and by that I mean in a respectful sort of flavor observation, occasional conversion or re-imagining (something I think they've already taken to the point I'm willing to go- give us a new setting, more new modules, etc) or at the very most in some sort of Essentials-like attempt at finding common design principles, but not at the cost of losing focus on 4e's design paradigms. I personally think Essentials walks that fine line, but manages to remain good design and my preference for introducing new players, but that's just my take and we all know people who feel otherwise. I think I'd also argue what could have been learned by supporting the past editions (at least 3rd) was learned during 4e's development, and is in fact the result of it, to a scaling extreme based on who you're talking to. And given every designer plays other games, in some respects Paizo, Goodman, Green Ronin and every other company using some D&D-inspired design are like R&D, save WotC doesn't immediately reap the rewards for any of their discoveries. Immediately, anyway, because at this point I feel there's less cloning and more expansion/development of past editions into entirely new animals. Maybe that will benefit D&D in the future without costing WotC a thing in the present.</blockquote>

Verification