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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Balesir" data-source="post: 5564815" data-attributes="member: 27160">QFT - this needed to be said.  Matt James' point about 'sharing experiences' I think is especially germane - more on that below.So, if a ruleset inspires me to rip out some pages, throw down the rulebook and storm out the door, that's a good thing, right? <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=";)" />OK, here is where I get to the meat of what I want to say.  I think Mike Mearls is doing a fair job, here, of explaining/revealing what it is about roleplaying gaming in general that he likes - where he gets his fun and where he's coming from.  This is good stuff, and I'm not one of those throwing fits about his posts (I post to the WotC forums under the same name I do here; feel free to check).  But I do have one problem, so far: I get no inkling at all that Mike Mearls understands in the slightest why I like the D&D 4E system specifically.  I don't take this as a failure on his part so much as a challenge to make it clear on my part, but it does cause me some anxiety.The reason why it causes me anxiety is simple: Mearls is the guy in charge of D&D development and, if he really doesn't understand what it is that I like about 4E then he may lead the development in a direction that will take out of the game what I enjoy.  This wouldn't even be deliberate - there's no "conspiracy theory" going on, just the realisation that if he doesn't know why I think it's good, how will he know to keep what it has that I enjoy?Now, in the final analysis all this shouldn't bother me, since I already have a game I enjoy.  If Mearls takes it off into a form I don't enjoy I still have a game as it is now - I just ignore all future changes and products.  Except that, as this anxiety that the head developer does not understand what I get out of 4E cuts in, WotC are simultaneously trying to make it harder to "get off the bus" by locking the electronic tools into online versions (that you can't just take away a "frozen" copy of for your own continuing use) and similar gambits.  None of this is insuperable, but it contributes to a creeping sense of disquiet so that I can well understand why several people are feeling insecure and dissatisfied, even if I disapprove of the ways they articulate that disquiet.Speaking for myself, I think the most constructive thing I could see WotC (and Mike Mearls in particular) do is communicate some sense that they do understand what is so great about 4E* and that they have no intention to sacrifice that for what they seek to add to the game.  Mike Mearls does seem to consider that there is "something missing" from 4E - whether that is because of the number of folks playing other game systems (some of whom knock 4E for reasons that seem as puerile to me as the personal attacks aimed at Mr. Mearls recently) or because of some dissatisfaction with his own experiences with the system I have no idea.  That he feels the need to add "a certain something" does not bother me - that he might inadvertently take away just what I love about the system in order to do so does bother me.For my part, perhaps what is needed is something to try to communicate to WotC what exactly it is about 4E that makes it a uniquely excellent roleplaying game in my opinion.  Maybe if several 4E 'patriots' were to make an honest attempt at this, it might either (a) increase understanding inside WotC or (b) prompt WotC to say "oh, yeah, we agree with this - we have no intention of taking this away!"  Result, either way around, I think.* Like inspiring creativity, improvisation and innovation within the rules, instead of the "sub-game" of influencing the GM to let you do other stuff that's more powerful/fun than what's in the rules...</blockquote>

Verification