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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Yaarel" data-source="post: 9843738" data-attributes="member: 58172">Part of the 4e design philosophy appears to be to create rules that no longer require a DM to adjudicate ambiguity or narrative context considerations. It is rules that ensure gaming balance rather than DM fiat.In a way, this was a continuation of 3e "simulationism", creating rules to autonomously quantify all aspects of the game world. But 4e prioritized the mechanics, and made versatile reflavoring a default norm. Giving players the control over flavor, made 4e the most flavorful, and diversely flavorful of all D&D editions.The two flaws of 4e were. The fatal flaw was 4e killing the OGL. It alternative licensing made it unappealing for indy content to develop niches.Second flaw was, its universal mechanical advancement schedule guaranteed gaming balance while the reflavorability made almost any character concept possible. But the schedule was too intricate and inflexible (such as, all classes needing to gain their utility powers at only certain levels). Thus it was difficult to modify mechanics while maintaining balance. Most DMs became dependent on the official products. Relatedly, the indies were unable to fill the gaps. The lack of DM mechanical tweaking made the game less of a living culture.If 4e allowed OGL to remain alive, we would all be playing 4e 2024 now. The products from indies would have proven which mechanics worked well, and WotC would have adopted trends.As it is now. 5e kept the 4e ideals of balancing player options, but made the game engine mechanics flexible and tough and easy to tweak. Rulings-not-rules is also part of the pushback against 4e mechanical inflexibility.But most importantly, the OGL now CC is alive and well, so indies can help meet gamer needs and keep 5e alive.</blockquote>

Verification