Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="The-Magic-Sword" data-source="post: 9593241" data-attributes="member: 6801252">I doubt that, team sports that feature roles are very popular overall, as are video games that feature team roles, even like the lionization of different roles in something like a rock band. I suspect people that don't like them are just louder because they're often confronted with them, and because something they're used to working suddenly doesn't, lest you forget that very few people are coming into the game without the context of prior games.Dialing down is much easier than dialing up (as in, it's easier to use low and moderate encounters than come up with elaborate ways to make an encounter beyond deadly to force roles and rebuild character options to be more interdependent), and I don't think it really drove very many people from 4e, there's way too much baggage in that discussion as a whole to assume that-- everything from reactions to the AEDU symmetry, the excess HP at launch, the marketing, and subtly different, the codification of roles as something a specific class. In other words, when you play a Paladin in 4e, you are a defender, even using the attackier subclass, you're a defender, ditto for a fighter, that was restrictive even for the time considering that even WOW let classes flex between roles to some extent. But either way, that sure is a weird thing to say about the market's #2 game when the #1 game is a household name with the backing and marketing of a much larger company, it sure isn't helping the other games that lack roles much, and even DND clings to the aesthetic and implication of roles, new players love to talk about their tanks and DPS.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="The-Magic-Sword, post: 9593241, member: 6801252"] I doubt that, team sports that feature roles are very popular overall, as are video games that feature team roles, even like the lionization of different roles in something like a rock band. I suspect people that don't like them are just louder because they're often confronted with them, and because something they're used to working suddenly doesn't, lest you forget that very few people are coming into the game without the context of prior games. Dialing down is much easier than dialing up (as in, it's easier to use low and moderate encounters than come up with elaborate ways to make an encounter beyond deadly to force roles and rebuild character options to be more interdependent), and I don't think it really drove very many people from 4e, there's way too much baggage in that discussion as a whole to assume that-- everything from reactions to the AEDU symmetry, the excess HP at launch, the marketing, and subtly different, the codification of roles as something a specific class. In other words, when you play a Paladin in 4e, you are a defender, even using the attackier subclass, you're a defender, ditto for a fighter, that was restrictive even for the time considering that even WOW let classes flex between roles to some extent. But either way, that sure is a weird thing to say about the market's #2 game when the #1 game is a household name with the backing and marketing of a much larger company, it sure isn't helping the other games that lack roles much, and even DND clings to the aesthetic and implication of roles, new players love to talk about their tanks and DPS. [/QUOTE]

Verification