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: 5490321" data-attributes="member: 27160">I grouped these comments together, because they all, for me, demonstrate the same phenomenon.  They all assume a focus - a raison d'être - for D&D that I think is a valid possible focus, but not the one 4E uses.  I'll return to the "one 4E uses" bit below, but, Mercurius, you are assuming that "immersion", character building based on concept derived from the campaign world and the system being "more realistic" are "Good Things" (TM).  While there is nothing terribly wrong with any of them, I don't think they are either necessary, nor the best focus for a game that has character levels and hit points.On the other hand, for me, these are kind of the point about D&D 4E combat.  If you haven't got a good, crunchy manoeuvre system, how are you to make good tactical choices that the other players can admire?  How are you to feel that your use of your brain (which is delightfully full of movement and positioning ponderings - yay!) is what has won through, not just your powerful character, your flattery of the DM or your luck at the dice? <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=";)" />And this, while starting with a very fair comment, draws a flawed conclusion, IMO.4E is not to your taste - OK.  This is fine and dandy; I mentioned above that we (roleplayers) tend to make assumptions about what is a "Good Thing" (TM) in a roleplaying game, and there is, objectively, no reason at all why the stuff I find fun needs to be fun for others, too.  But therein lies the rub; the same applies in reverse.  D&D 4E is, from what I can see, thought to be fantastic fun by quite a number of people.  Your answer to your own disaffection with the way 4E does things, to "get a new ("better") edition" (that suits your own preferences, presumably), just perpetuates a bad situation - are we to flip-flop eternally between meeting the needs of one group of roleplayers and doing the same for another?  Where's the point in that?Much better, in my mind, would be for us to recognise that different folks like different styles - let's call them focusses - of play.  These foci are not really compatible - those that are focussing on "getting to the meat" of facing up to encounters and beating them and those who like to explore a character concept based on a layered texture of a detailed campaign milieu are always going to clash, both at the table and in terms of what rules they like*.  So why not have two games?  Or more?  You could even call both "D&D" - and use the same setting elements, background, genre details and tropes for both.  "D&D: Alterniverse" and "D&D: Ascendant", maybe.  Choose a (better) name to suit each one <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 should note that the two sides may be the same person; I like both styles, but have come to realise that I can only (satisfactorily) play one at a time.</blockquote>

Verification