Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon 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 Next
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
*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!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
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
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions
Should I play 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="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7622339" data-attributes="member: 996"><p>Oh, you went dark on that tangent, and now were back to the subjectivity portion of the ride. </p><p></p><p>It's not exactly an unfamiliar pattern. </p><p></p><p>Hey, when you asserted I had a pattern of not backing up my claims with facts, I went ahead and /did/. </p><p></p><p>Why don't you "prove me wrong" the same way, and instead of waving the subjective flag at someone's post, get 'descriptive' with the thing they're talking about to illustrate how the facts maybe don't align exactly with their assertion?</p><p></p><p> Y'know what, I'm going to skip the personal stuff - it's silly, we're both old-timers who love(d) the game in it's 1e form... we have too much common ground to go there.</p><p></p><p>So, the design goal in question was to create a game that was functional at all phase of play, not just the middle bit. I'm not sure how we're supposed to objectively judge a game that doesn't work for ~half it's presented arc of play as no better/different from one that does. </p><p>I can certainly see holding very different opinions about it, of course.</p><p></p><p> No, the /fighter/ always does well, whether it's simple or not in the edition in question. The Cleric, Wizard and Rogue also tend to always do well, even though two of them are among the most complex classes in the game, in every ed. And the Barbarian, even when the simplest class (3e & 5e, for instance, though in 5e, the Champion is the simplest sub-class), does not do as well as the "Big 4." </p><p></p><p>That's not "simplicity makes a class popular," that theory doesn't fit the results you're basing it upon, the polls of popularity don't give us results anything like popularity descending in correlation with increasing complexity.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 7622339, member: 996"] Oh, you went dark on that tangent, and now were back to the subjectivity portion of the ride. It's not exactly an unfamiliar pattern. Hey, when you asserted I had a pattern of not backing up my claims with facts, I went ahead and /did/. Why don't you "prove me wrong" the same way, and instead of waving the subjective flag at someone's post, get 'descriptive' with the thing they're talking about to illustrate how the facts maybe don't align exactly with their assertion? Y'know what, I'm going to skip the personal stuff - it's silly, we're both old-timers who love(d) the game in it's 1e form... we have too much common ground to go there. So, the design goal in question was to create a game that was functional at all phase of play, not just the middle bit. I'm not sure how we're supposed to objectively judge a game that doesn't work for ~half it's presented arc of play as no better/different from one that does. I can certainly see holding very different opinions about it, of course. No, the /fighter/ always does well, whether it's simple or not in the edition in question. The Cleric, Wizard and Rogue also tend to always do well, even though two of them are among the most complex classes in the game, in every ed. And the Barbarian, even when the simplest class (3e & 5e, for instance, though in 5e, the Champion is the simplest sub-class), does not do as well as the "Big 4." That's not "simplicity makes a class popular," that theory doesn't fit the results you're basing it upon, the polls of popularity don't give us results anything like popularity descending in correlation with increasing complexity. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions
Should I play 4e?
Top