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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 6066448" data-attributes="member: 6696971">Thank you.I cannot say for sure.  What I can say for sure is that the majority of 4e advocates that I have interchange with (in life and on these boards) have a deep understanding of the ruleset, use it to its fullest, and almost universally invoke its thematic depth (especially martial) before banging the tactical depth drum.  So then the flowchart:  understanding > experience > advocacy of thematic depth.  I've also seen this flowchart quite a bit:  misunderstanding or antagonistic predisposition > no experience or inexperience > 4e is just a tactical skirmish game and/or not an RPG and/or not D&D.  There is plenty in between those two as well, such as:  reasonable understanding > tried it for a year > not my cup of tea.  I think its tactical depth was leveraged most deeply, and to great effect, in organized play so it received the most pub/run.  Unfortunately, given the history of the D&D culture's embedded antagonism toward "munchkinism" or "powergaming" from 2e onward, this strength worked to make it an easy target for caricature by detractors.  Then the friendless toward the metagame (and the system's mechanical tools to leverage it...specifically those that empowered players) were realized and that too came under fire from the same source; embedded antagonism toward "metagaming" from 2e onward, typically associated with "powergaming" (but in this case used for a Narrative creative agenda).What the designers think I don't know.  It does seem that Mearls is a bright enough gaming designer but his gaming tastes seem to wax and wane...and I wonder if his varying stages of design vision is an impulsive byproduct of that.  What their internal market research reveals is a mystery.  I have little faith in it in a great many markets.  All too often there is a shallow understanding of what is truly going on and a trend is often misrepresented by a 1st order function (a magic bullet) because the "reasoning" of it is easily graphed and therefore accessible to board members...and you can then legitimize your position/salary as analyst/tea leaf reader and get your raise/project funded.</blockquote>

Verification