NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mercurius" data-source="post: 6361342" data-attributes="member: 59082">I'm starting to wear down, Tony, but will try to keep going and have enjoyed the back and forth!I agree with your first sentence, not with your second because I don't think it has to be tied into edition warring in a similar sense that making differentiations about editions isn't inherently warring about them.Hey, I agree with you. I actually overall preferred 4E to 3E, so a debate about their respective merits between the two of us wouldn't really generate much friction. I do think, though, that you are writing off the downside of 4E's tactical mastery, perhaps simply because it never was an issue for you.Again, where with 3E it was almost entirely a rather pronounced systems mastery, 4E combined some systems mastery and some tactical mastery in a way that was frustrating for "systems-tactics neophytes."Well part of it is understanding the roles and how they all benefit the group. Strikers are just the sexiest, although controllers have their moments (as impressive as 50 HP of damage to a single target, 20 HP of damage to five targets is even more impressive). Defenders and leaders weren't quite as sexy, though, unless in the hands of a capable player who gets how it all works. And for really casual players who just like to show up and roll dice, there's a steep and long learning curve.OK, fair enough. That's a fair characterization, although I'm a bit confused about the last sentence.The second - it feels like AD&D with fiddly bits taken out, but with a more streamlined core mechanic. Sort of like what 3E "should" have looked like (aka "Castles & Crusades") with the extra stuff as options, not core.   I think you're missing my view here, Tony. I just don't think we can separate out subjectivity like you want to. I know it would be cleaner that way, but we're a messy (and rather irrational) species and there is no avoiding it. Think about how deeply offended some were that the gnome and druid were lacking from the 4E PHB. I mean, I got it - I'm not a fan of dragonborn, tieflings, and prefer gray elves to eladrin - but I can live with them being there. But some folks were really, deeply offended. We can't just ignore that.I hear you and think this is where a lot of these debates comes down to misunderstandings and different cognitive styles, even personality types. On the other hand, where we disagree, I think, is that you seem to think that we can completely separate out the subjective, or even need to to have a worthwhile conversation. I see he subjective component as being the marinade, the sauce - without which we have a dry and tasteless meal. I take issue with your insistence that one must be in one trench or the other. I refused to choose a trench! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />I'm interesting in something that, I imagine, game designers are especially interested in: How do different mechanics facilitate different kinds of interior, imaginative experiences? There is such a wealth of avenues of inquiry there. Tony, do you think it possible that 4E was canned because of the splintering of the community that had occured during that time frame? Do you think it possible that WotC said, "OK, we tried making it work - and for whatever reason 4E just wasn't was well loved by as many folks as we had hoped."Let me be clear: Popularity, or success in this sense, is not a value judgment. Miley Cyrus sells a lot more albums than Arvo Part, but one is considered a musical genius and the other is not. I mean it could be that 4E was just too sophisticated, too brilliant for the average D&D player to take ahold of. I'm not saying that is true, but it is a possibility. I just want to differentiate this, because I sometimes get the sense from fans of 4E that when somebody says it was a failure, or it wasn't as well loved as, say, 3.5, they get defensive -as if I was making a value judgment. I am not.Yeah, I hear that. I've advocated for longer "macro-cycles" of whole editions--maybe 10-12 years--and smaller "micro-cycles" of sub-editions or revisions, maybe 2-3 years. I know Essentials was along these lines, but it didn't quite take.Could you imagine a 4E Pathfinder? It is another conversation, but how would you change it? (In brief). I know, but...re-read what you wrote, my friend. A pretty provocative statement.And it remains to be seen if it can be actualized, or rather to what degree it will be actualized. I imagine that for some it will work, for many it will not.Yup. You know I'm always amazed at how much people don't like specific editions. I've found them all to be fun, in their own time at least. I love 3E when it came out and thought it was a tremendous advance from AD&D, and really liked 4E, although felt it was more of a sideways move from 3E - improvement in some ways, not so much in others. But my point is, all editions of D&D are great. Just like if you listen to the albums of your favorite band, or the novels of your favorite author, you might have fond favorites, but hopefully you see a progression. But just because their first album or novel was comparatively simple compared to more recent work, it still has its place and charm and is fun to listen to. I agree that it is more balanced than before, but I also think it veered furthest from "that classic D&D feel," both in terms of game mechanics and the style of presentation and content. I mean when you have dragonborn and eladrin in the PHB, you're saying "This ain't your daddy's D&D!" This was part of the problem, for many. They felt "If it ain't broke, why fix it?" Some still feel that way about OD&D, while others it is more of a tonal, stylistic quality.At least give my ice cream analogy a shot! You're just writing it off without considering it. Do you agree that a more "vanilla" flavor is a better base flavor than chocolate hazelnut crunch? That it is better to start with vanilla and then add toppings, then to offer a flavor that some people love but a lot don't? I'm not saying it is going to work, but I think it has a shot.But I don't think your analogy of the ice cream bar works because, well, it didn't work out that way. Many people felt that they were being force-fed a rather specific flavor.I mean, you keep writing off the actual experience of many, many gamers - enough that Pathfinder thrived, enough that 4E only lasted for three and a half years. Again, the point is not that the flavor of 4E wasn't (isn't) a good one, just that it was too stylistically specific to carry the flag.</blockquote>

Verification