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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7217787" data-attributes="member: 996">It's not like I'm unfamiliar with the symptoms of lactose intolerance, and didn't think that the analogy mightn't create an amusing image in a mind or two out there. Low humor, I admit.   I get that it's an assertion that you make about yourself, personally.  I also notice that the reasons you bring up also correlate to things that improved balance.  But, hey, to the extent that you speak only for yourself, you may, indeed, avail yourself of the shield of subjectivity, as far as it goes.[sblock="Edition Stuff continues"] But, those are blanket claims.   Now, that's not just a statement of subjective opinion, but of the system's functionality, so I'm going to field it.   You actually /can/ run a complex encounter in 'waves' (attracting nearby monsters, etc) - it's not exactly an unheard of DM trick in 4e, to challenge a party with masses of enemies - you can even integrate it into a behind-the-scenes skill challenge of dungeon exploration.  It was how I converted Temple of the Frog (0D&D Blackmoor) to Essentials.  Fair 'nuff.  And if you say that Doctor Zhivago felt like a high-adrenaline thrill-ride to you, I'd give your opinion similar weight.  But also nothing like a board game in actual play.  So, your contention is that it felt like a boardgame, because people used minis on a grid.  But, presumably, since you were also referring to people fleeing to PF, you did not have that reaction to 3.x/PF, yet it made very heavy use of minis, grids, templates, alternately-counted-diagonals, turn-based movement, &c - all  things that would make a 3.x combat that lasted more than a surprise round look like moving minis around on a board from the outside.  What was different in 3.x/PF?Well, there are two obvious differences:  3e often had very short combats compared to 4e's 'set pieces,' and 3e tended towards 'static combat' which 4e intentionally took a penduluum-swing away from.However, both of them are still tangled up with balance.  3e combats got very short, very quickly, when the game got into 'rocket tag' by optimizing damage and SoD DCs, which was terribly imbalanced, of course, and 4e came along and 'fixed' that, not only could you not cheese up untouchable save DCs (the sub-system didn't even work that way anymore!) but there prettymuch weren't SoDs, and damage-optimization wouldn't drop a solo in the surprise round.  Encounter design guidelines were more robustly balanced.  Classes were better-balanced, and that meant casters had far fewer spells, and very few of them could be made into "I win buttons" with applied system mastery - and those that could got swiftly errata'd.  Similarly, 3e combats notoriously tended to be 'static' because the option of full attacking was so much better than moving (and you could only 5' step if you full attacked).  What's that, one choice being clearly so much better it overshadows another?  Yep, imbalance.  So, yes, you saw people moving minis around a lot, because they were playing a balanced game that didn't degenerate into rocket tag and static full-attack-damage-trading.   Hey, it was a balanced game, you didn't like it - some people disliked it so much they started the edition war - all the reasons you (and they) point to for not liking it map to things that improved balance, or even just dissolve under scrutiny.It's not an unwarranted observation.  [/sblock] So, you retract your blanket assertion that absolutely no one dislikes balance and everyone who shares your dislike shares your exact same reasons?I'm OK with that, but I remain curious about a point or two under the cut, if you'd like to address them in your own sblock or a PM, while the main discussion continues, I'm game. It would be like the artistic-minded saying the game was 'boring' or 'stifles creativity,' sure, it's assessing only one aspect of the game. Edit:  But, I suppose it does say something about the game, itself, too, just an incomplete picture...</blockquote>

Verification