Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 5272305" data-attributes="member: 82106">There's no irony involved in what Tony said at all John. It's actually a highly valid point. I personally happen to think that the 4e devs (at least some fraction of them and I'd include Mearls in that group judging from the stuff he's done in the past) understand the whole &quot;how to build a story&quot; thing. You understand the concept, I understand the concept, most experienced players certainly understand the concept. Fundamentally EVERYONE understands the concept of &quot;this is a game, these are the rules.&quot; I mean it isn't any different from the rule that you have to pay rent in Monopoly. It doesn't need an 'in-game' reason and I have yet to have the slightest problem with people accepting it. I literally explain it to them like &quot;well, it is just like the way full house beats 2 pair in a poker hand, it is just rules so we can play the game.&quot;Now we can argue all day, night, week, month, forever about what aspects of the changes in Essentials are driven by what considerations. It certainly is a reasonable point to say that Hasbro does market research and believes X, and Y will sell more games. The truth is some of the things in Essentials are no doubt driven by that, some are probably driven by devs that want to just 'do something different', and some is driven by attempts to experiment and improve the game. Like any large project I'm pretty sure it has a lot of different goals and inputs and isn't all going in a single direction.I'm with Garthanos though, I liked warlords. I think clerics DO represent a significant archetype, but I like warlords. Probably a variety of reasons they're not reprinted in Essentials (complexity, etc), but it is too bad. It will be interesting to see what happens next and if softcover &quot;Essentialized&quot; resources will focus on them later.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="AbdulAlhazred, post: 5272305, member: 82106"] There's no irony involved in what Tony said at all John. It's actually a highly valid point. I personally happen to think that the 4e devs (at least some fraction of them and I'd include Mearls in that group judging from the stuff he's done in the past) understand the whole "how to build a story" thing. You understand the concept, I understand the concept, most experienced players certainly understand the concept. Fundamentally EVERYONE understands the concept of "this is a game, these are the rules." I mean it isn't any different from the rule that you have to pay rent in Monopoly. It doesn't need an 'in-game' reason and I have yet to have the slightest problem with people accepting it. I literally explain it to them like "well, it is just like the way full house beats 2 pair in a poker hand, it is just rules so we can play the game." Now we can argue all day, night, week, month, forever about what aspects of the changes in Essentials are driven by what considerations. It certainly is a reasonable point to say that Hasbro does market research and believes X, and Y will sell more games. The truth is some of the things in Essentials are no doubt driven by that, some are probably driven by devs that want to just 'do something different', and some is driven by attempts to experiment and improve the game. Like any large project I'm pretty sure it has a lot of different goals and inputs and isn't all going in a single direction. I'm with Garthanos though, I liked warlords. I think clerics DO represent a significant archetype, but I like warlords. Probably a variety of reasons they're not reprinted in Essentials (complexity, etc), but it is too bad. It will be interesting to see what happens next and if softcover "Essentialized" resources will focus on them later. [/QUOTE]

Verification