Removing homogenity from 4e

[Imaro]

I never really understood the devotion towards core only. People stated their devotion to it in 3E, but always for the wrong reasons. People said core only was more balanced, when the opposite was true. What core only 3E did accomplish was a less untidy game easier for the Dm to control, not something more balanced.

You do realize that balance doesn't equate to the most important thing for every player of D&D. Perhaps it's moreso having a finite set of rules and reference books that everyone can in fact get a handle on and mastery of... that makes core appealing.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

You do realize that balance doesn't equate to the most important thing for every player of D&D. Perhaps it's moreso having a finite set of rules and reference books that everyone can in fact get a handle on and mastery of... that makes core appealing.

There's a difference between balance not being important and balance being a problem. 2E AD&D, Rolemaster, and nWoD/oWoD are less balanced than 4E, but a lack of balance isn't a glaring issue with those games. In 3E, balance tends to be a glaring issue unless the players and the DM work extra hard to avoid them.

 

[Imaro]

Um, ranger/rogue hybrid at 1st level covers Ranger with Shortbow EASILY in 4e. This is a trick question right?

It's kind of weird the effect the characer builder has. You no longer really NEED to purchase the supplements to get the crunch. By far, its much easier AND cheaper to simply buy a 1 month pass, download the character builder and voila, you get all the options.....

The DDI feature of 4e I think has become a fundamental change to the issue of "using the supplement treadmill". I mean, a yearly subscription costs me $70 but it in effect means that I personally don't feel the weight of the hardcover treadmill many think of with 4e.

You know, let me do it with the character builder and see what I have...

Not even a couple of minutes...

(Interesting thing...there _IS_ a rogue at-will that allows one to use ANY ranged weapon)

Yeah, this would have been a pretty good answer... only the dependence on supplements was criticized upthread... or at least it was as far as 3.x is concerned. I understand people probably aren't going to read this whole thread, but there is an ongoing debate here and without its context some answers aren't really viable... well at least not in the context of the debate.

 

[Imaro]

There's a difference between balance not being important and balance being a problem. 2E AD&D, Rolemaster, and nWoD/oWoD are less balanced than 4E, but a lack of balance isn't a glaring issue with those games. In 3E, balance tends to be a glaring issue unless the players and the DM work extra hard to avoid them.

Have you ever considered that the "glaring" issue doesn't really impede on a few/some/many/most/all people who enjoy playing 3.x? Just a thought... isn't "fun" the most important thing? And for those above... their "fun" isn't impeded by the balance issues of 3.x, or maybe they've fixed them to their own satisfaction (as opposed to spending $100+ for a new game)... or whatever.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Have you ever considered that the "glaring" issue doesn't really impede on a few/some/many/most/all people who enjoy playing 3.x? Just a thought... isn't "fun" the most important thing? And for those above... their "fun" isn't impeded by the balance issues of 3.x, or maybe they've fixed them to their own satisfaction (as opposed to spending $100+ for a new game)... or whatever.

It was a common complaint. The developers thought it was important enough to be the focal point of the next edition. The new edition hasn't failed horribly, and has appeared on major bestseller lists. I don't know...

Maybe it wasn't a "glaring" issue to a vocal minority who are upset the game went in a different direction. That sounds more reasonable.

I only brought it up because it was the most common justification I tended to see from people who limited their game to the "Core 3"

 

[Imaro]

It was a common complaint. The developers thought it was important enough to be the focal point of the next edition. The new edition hasn't failed horribly, and has appeared on major bestseller lists. I don't know...

Maybe it wasn't a "glaring" issue to a vocal minority who are upset the game went in a different direction. That sounds more reasonable.

I only brought it up because it was the most common justification I tended to see from people who limited their game to the "Core 3"

Whoa, whoa, I never said 4e was doing horribly or anything like that. Were their people who had a major problem with 3e's balance issues... yes, but they've probably moved to 4e or other game systems... as far as a "vocal minority" ... well I guess everything is a minority in the rpg market when compared to D&D's share...

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Whoa, whoa, I never said 4e was doing horribly or anything like that. Were their people who had a major problem with 3e's balance issues... yes, but they've probably moved to 4e or other game systems... as far as a "vocal minority" ... well I guess everything is a minority in the rpg market when compared to D&D's share...

I imagine most people who are still playing 3.5E don't find balance a glaring issue. It was a glaring issue debated by many people who primarily played 3.5E during 3.5E's lifetime. I was there, as I'm the sort who is drawn to arguments. Back during my days on the WotC 3.5E forums, I was knee deep in all the balance discussions, where those who thought it was balanced ok were outnumbered by the combination of people unsatisfied with the balance and those who thought it was unbalanced but didn't worry about it so mucn.

 

[Imaro]

I imagine most people who are still playing 3.5E don't find balance a glaring issue. It was a glaring issue debated by many people who primarily played 3.5E during 3.5E's lifetime. I was there, as I'm the sort who is drawn to arguments. Back during my days on the WotC 3.5E forums, I was knee deep in all the balance discussions, where those who thought it was balanced ok were outnumbered by the combination of people unsatisfied with the balance and those who thought it was unbalanced but didn't worry about it so mucn.

Well for anecdotal evidence that's cool... of course forum goer's are not representative of the majority of gamers.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Well for anecdotal evidence that's cool... of course forum goer's are not representative of the majority of gamers.

But what do we have to represent the majority of gamers then?

I am afraid while WotC can rely on its market research and surveys to get a sense of "majroity of gamers", we don't have anything at all.

I think that WotC picked their focuses and based their design around such data. And since they don't seem to backpedal now, it seems they were right.

Maybe in 5 years, the prevalent opinions of the market have changed and the next design team will put different emphasis accordingly. Or - of course, this could be a pie dream - they find a way to expand their design to cover more people without compromising the goals of 4E.

 

[BryonD]

It was a common complaint.

True.

Kinda like how too much homogeneity is a common complaint about the current edition.