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
NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Schroedinger's Wounding (Forked Thread: Disappointed in 4e)
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="Mustrum_Ridcully" data-source="post: 4553040" data-attributes="member: 710"><p>Probably not. But maybe he should at some point just say: "You know, I don't want that new edition with the 2d20 damage longswords. I have understood what the designers are attempting with this, but I still don't like their goals. I just have to do something else."</p><p>There is no need to open a new thread</p><p>"Longswords still deal 2d20. I still don't like it."</p><p>"Longswords should deal 1d6, but they deal 2d20. Explain this to me again."</p><p>"I think Longswords deal too much damage. That is terribly bad and this is no longer the type of game I want to play."</p><p></p><p></p><p>I can't make a good spin on that volume control analogy, so this will have to suffice: </p><p></p><p>The idea isn't good because it is an unrealistic element. The idea is good because it is good for playing the game. The dynamic of an encounter focused game works a lot better if you can assume full hit points in every encounter and base the entire combat balance and rules around that. </p><p></p><p>So, it is a matter of priorities or preferences. Better realism or better usability? More focus on strategic elements, or more focus on tactical elements? </p><p></p><p>It's clear where the 4E design teams priorities were and that you don't share them. That's okay. But at some point you just have to acknowledge that people have these different priorities and that 4E is the right game for people with the 4E design team priorities and not so well suited for people with different priorities. </p><p></p><p>I could try to come up with 5 Million ways (I would assuredly fail) to explain how I and others can play the game without our disbelief suspenders being torn apart. None of them would work for you, because you don't share the same priorities. Unless I can brainwash you to take my priorities in gaming, you won't love the system as much as I do. </p><p></p><p>At this point, 4E fans really have to stop trying to convince 4E dislikers that they will like 4E if they just try it long enough, and 4E dislikers have to stop trying to convince 4E fans that their game isn't as much fun to them as it appears to be. </p><p></p><p>There is still room for discussion of the merits and flaws of the design, but there is no point in trying to convince others that their priorities are wrong. </p><p></p><p>Ah, well, it won't stop. I will let myself dragged into it again. But I am still saying.. <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=";)" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Mustrum_Ridcully, post: 4553040, member: 710"] Probably not. But maybe he should at some point just say: "You know, I don't want that new edition with the 2d20 damage longswords. I have understood what the designers are attempting with this, but I still don't like their goals. I just have to do something else." There is no need to open a new thread "Longswords still deal 2d20. I still don't like it." "Longswords should deal 1d6, but they deal 2d20. Explain this to me again." "I think Longswords deal too much damage. That is terribly bad and this is no longer the type of game I want to play." I can't make a good spin on that volume control analogy, so this will have to suffice: The idea isn't good because it is an unrealistic element. The idea is good because it is good for playing the game. The dynamic of an encounter focused game works a lot better if you can assume full hit points in every encounter and base the entire combat balance and rules around that. So, it is a matter of priorities or preferences. Better realism or better usability? More focus on strategic elements, or more focus on tactical elements? It's clear where the 4E design teams priorities were and that you don't share them. That's okay. But at some point you just have to acknowledge that people have these different priorities and that 4E is the right game for people with the 4E design team priorities and not so well suited for people with different priorities. I could try to come up with 5 Million ways (I would assuredly fail) to explain how I and others can play the game without our disbelief suspenders being torn apart. None of them would work for you, because you don't share the same priorities. Unless I can brainwash you to take my priorities in gaming, you won't love the system as much as I do. At this point, 4E fans really have to stop trying to convince 4E dislikers that they will like 4E if they just try it long enough, and 4E dislikers have to stop trying to convince 4E fans that their game isn't as much fun to them as it appears to be. There is still room for discussion of the merits and flaws of the design, but there is no point in trying to convince others that their priorities are wrong. Ah, well, it won't stop. I will let myself dragged into it again. But I am still saying.. ;) [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Schroedinger's Wounding (Forked Thread: Disappointed in 4e)
Top