Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Mearls' "Stop, Thief!" Article
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Imaro" data-source="post: 5575947" data-attributes="member: 48965"><p>Hoestly...I'm not sure what you mean here. Instead of parsing a single sentence out of a comment by Balesir, why not just state simply and concisely why you don't think the reward rules support gamism?</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>First, I never said 4e was at odds with your playstyle... but I don't think it was designed with your playstyle as it's primary goal either. Again I think you are inferring your own take from what is in these books... The issue, IMO, is that Heroquest gives you specific mechanics to enforce it's pacing advice (Level of difficulty is directly dependant upon how well or bad your party has already done) and thematic concerns (You are literally limitless in creating any character as long as it is genre appropriate... 4e doesn't.... DC is based on level not story concerns...character creation is limited to the available combat builds/roles that have been developed, and so on.</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>Combat is definitely not all of the game, but we were talking about whether there were sub-optimal choices in game... the Ranger, does better damage than the Warlock and gets more skills than the Warlock... so again the Warlock seems a sub-optimal choice for in combat and outside combat as well when compared to the ranger.</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>I think this speaks to a bigger issue I have with your ideas on 4e... they tend not to be supported in actual implementation of the game by the actual designers. Do majority of the modules from WotC center around "conflict-via-combat driven thematic play, using traditional fantasy tropes" or do they center around gamist challenge based play? I would argue it is gamist challenge based play.</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>Yes the DM's chosen method of designing encounters does have a big impact on the play of the game... like every edition of D&D. Where we disagree is that, IMO, the rules do stress building encounters as tests of tactics for the players. For the most part the DMG doesn't talk about designing an encounter in a thematic way it talks about designing it with the synergies of roles and monster powers in mind. So no... while it won't push against what you are doing, since you can select thematic monsters for your encounters with the appropriate roles and powers... 4e doesn't necessarily promote that particular playstyle over challenge based either, at least (IMO) no more than any other edition of D&D.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Imaro, post: 5575947, member: 48965"] Hoestly...I'm not sure what you mean here. Instead of parsing a single sentence out of a comment by Balesir, why not just state simply and concisely why you don't think the reward rules support gamism? First, I never said 4e was at odds with your playstyle... but I don't think it was designed with your playstyle as it's primary goal either. Again I think you are inferring your own take from what is in these books... The issue, IMO, is that Heroquest gives you specific mechanics to enforce it's pacing advice (Level of difficulty is directly dependant upon how well or bad your party has already done) and thematic concerns (You are literally limitless in creating any character as long as it is genre appropriate... 4e doesn't.... DC is based on level not story concerns...character creation is limited to the available combat builds/roles that have been developed, and so on. Combat is definitely not all of the game, but we were talking about whether there were sub-optimal choices in game... the Ranger, does better damage than the Warlock and gets more skills than the Warlock... so again the Warlock seems a sub-optimal choice for in combat and outside combat as well when compared to the ranger. I think this speaks to a bigger issue I have with your ideas on 4e... they tend not to be supported in actual implementation of the game by the actual designers. Do majority of the modules from WotC center around "conflict-via-combat driven thematic play, using traditional fantasy tropes" or do they center around gamist challenge based play? I would argue it is gamist challenge based play. Yes the DM's chosen method of designing encounters does have a big impact on the play of the game... like every edition of D&D. Where we disagree is that, IMO, the rules do stress building encounters as tests of tactics for the players. For the most part the DMG doesn't talk about designing an encounter in a thematic way it talks about designing it with the synergies of roles and monster powers in mind. So no... while it won't push against what you are doing, since you can select thematic monsters for your encounters with the appropriate roles and powers... 4e doesn't necessarily promote that particular playstyle over challenge based either, at least (IMO) no more than any other edition of D&D. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Mearls' "Stop, Thief!" Article
Top