Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 5171695" data-attributes="member: 42582">I think it is almost goes without saying that different rules sets - character build and action resolution mechanics, encounter building guidelines, XP and treasure rules, etc - will lead to different play experiences.These differences are only compounded by the different ways that individual groups use those rule sets and drift them in various ways (eg tweak the action resolution mechanics, ignore item creation rules or wealth by level guidelines, etc).The reason some people dislike 4e is that it doesn't give them what they are looking for from an RPG (for the most vocal critics on these forums, that seems to be something like Gygaxian play of the 1st ed AD&D variety).The reason some people like 4e is that it does give them what they are looking for from an RPG (for me, at least, a system that delivers what it promises on the box - engaging gameplay with a heavy but by no means exclusive combat focus, and strong elements that emerge out of that gameplay).If by "balance" we mean "designed to achieve what is intended" then yes, the standards of rules design are improving. Compare 4e to a game like Rolemaster, which offers in-depth characters through its character build rules, but then kills them off willy-nilly (at least at low levels) through its action resolution mechanics. A good RPG should be better designed than that (eg in Basic D&D the impermanence of PCs is offset by the ease of making them up - this is emblematic of good design).If by "balance" we mean "providing a fair challenge for the players across a wide range of PC build strategies" then I think that D&D 3e and 4e are better designed for that than is AD&D in either edition. But that is not a criticism of AD&D. AD&D was simply not designed to cater to, or reward, PC build strategies (although this changed towards the end of 2nd ed, with an ever-increasing profliferation of Handbooks and Players' Options). AD&D play is simply not about the mechanically-defined PC in the same way that contemporary D&D is - to use various slogans, it's about "challenging the player rather than the PC", it's about "operational/squad-level play", it's about "resource management", it's about surviving the Tomb of Horrors.I think the trend in D&D design away from AD&D towards character-build oriented play isn't about improvements in any objective sense, nor about recognition that "balance" makes for a better game. It's about changing preferences among RPGers. Put crudely, in my view the degree of overlap between traditional wargamer preferences, and RPG player preferences, is now much lower than it was when AD&D was designed.I adhere to the school of sociology that says that it's the nature of our sort of society to keep working on technical designs and superseding them. RPG and other game design is not exempt from this. Designers work harder and harder to make sure that their games deliver, in play, the experience that they promise. But what that experience is is obviously different from game to game.This seems to assume that there is a single "fun" in roleplaying. I don't agree with that. Different players are looking for different experiences from RPGing. While it's obviously worthwhile trying to grow the pool of committed GMs (and I think tigther game design with better written rulebooks helps that) I think this is orthogonal to the question of what sort of experience games are designed to deliver.</blockquote>

Verification