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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 5670806" data-attributes="member: 82106">I agree with both you, Scribble, and CJ too. I think the real problem was just that balance was achieved, but a certain amount of crazy wackiness and distinctiveness was baked out when balance was baked in. As CJ says, you CAN have both if you do it right. The problem is I can put this stuff into my game, but it REALLY REALLY needs to be included in the game itself, and the reasons for it and how to use it need to be described in the DMG. People unwrap their shiny new 4e and play and they find that pretty soon each combat is a lot like the other combats, it is difficult to achieve pacing with encounters that all work on the same basis instead of having a variety of different types. You can easily solve that, but most players and DMs don't really quite understand what is going on and why it doesn't just happen naturally, which it really did in older D&D. People will say 'it creates problems' but in a sense the problems are part of the magic of the game, and if the DM can manage what problems he allows to come up and always has the nice smoothly working core of the game to fall back on, then it will work, I think.I'm not sure at this point WotC can bear to reimagine their approach to 4e though. The system can handle many more modes of play than they have even touched on, but they seem bound and determined to stay their course. Essentials basically missed the boat, even if it did introduce some elements that were beneficial. The incremental MM3 monster changes helped too, but they need to get bold and take some real risks and get the crazy back in the game.</blockquote>

Verification