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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Skyscraper" data-source="post: 5620819" data-attributes="member: 48518">Love this column. The idea is interesting, but:1) if the core class option is only to show new players how to play, all players in a  given group are likely to evolve towards the advanced class options  after having played a bit and the game is likely to remain "complex".2)  The over-reliance on math in 4E is one thing that makes the edition tedious and cumbersome. Sure, you can get mathematically balanced  classes and encounters, which is fine; but DMs (and players) don't necessarily care about  designing an encounter, a PC or a game, they want to PLAY.The  old editions were interesting not only because of simplicity. They were  interesting due to the feel of the game. 4E is a superb tabletop  tactical game, but it strays away from the role-play experience that  defines D&D at the outset. Math mattered less in older editions,  thus no one tried to power-game (or everyone did, but to some lesser  degree). It was the in-game decisions that mattered, what you chose to do,  how you tried to get the best benefit form your wall of stone or your  improbable Lower Water spell, or how you tried to lure the Vecna cultist  into a trap to kill him; not the design decisions or which power you  had and whether or not your PC was balanced with the others. I think  that any attempt to simplify the game should be oriented towards that  direction, i.e. bringing back player (and DM!) in-game decisions at the  forefront, instead of their decisions being what power they'll choose  (or be imposed) or what encounter the DM will design.... All this from one who thinks great things about 4E and plays it quite a bit. If they're going to rethink the game, I would hope that they go about it differently, myself.</blockquote>

Verification