Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Geron Raveneye" data-source="post: 3767557" data-attributes="member: 2268">One view that (maybe) adds some interesting point of view on this discussion is that of Moonte Cook (and I bet this particular entry in his column has been linked a lot more already <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/laugh.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":lol:" title="Laughing    :lol:" data-shortname=":lol:" /> )<a href="http://www.montecook.com/cgi-bin/page.cgi?otherd20_Spellcasters" target="_blank">Monte Cook on the evolving spellcaster in D&D</a> The thing is, you mention the meta-genre that D&D is supposed to cover, and under which the biggest possible numbers of playstyles should be supported with a robust ruleset. In my opinion, that metagenre is D&D itself. And the basic problem is that you have as many different playstyles in it as you have kinds of players, which is a damn broad range. If you want to support them all equally, you'd have to adress the needs of each kind equally, too, which won't really work, as each playstyle has (sometimes radically) different requirements in terms of hardcoded rules or detailed background.D&D needs to be designed around a core assumption of play. The rules will have to be designed to support that core assumption primarily, and other playstyles secondarily. We're getting more and more glimpses of the core assumptions for 4E with every peek the current designers give us at what they are working on, and how it looks. And within those core assumptions is the theory that a "per encounter" mechanic for casters and additional abilities for every class will enhance gameplay...the kind of gameplay that the current designers think is preferable. If that is true is a very subjective matter, though. For those who prefer the style of play of older editions, 4E will probably not enhance their D&D experience, while those who felt very restricted by the older rules will welcome the new stuff with open arms. For a lot of people, the older restrictions make a lot of sense, and they can also explain why, and for at least an equal lot, those restrictions were completely nosensical, or at best a bad game design put in the game to attain some shoddy balance (see Monte's comment on the power gain of older wizard variants being "bad game design", something a lot of older edition players would simply shake their head at).</blockquote>

Verification