Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Jhaelen" data-source="post: 7023927" data-attributes="member: 46713">I'm quite sure nothing about 4e's design was the result of 'randomness'.4e was mainly designed to address the (perceived?) shortcomings of 3e, an edition that had been generally well received and brought many players back to D&amp;D (myself included) after they'd grown disenchanted with it when 2e didn't represent enough of an evolution to allow it to compete with more modern RPG systems.Combat in 3e was just as tactical and involved as in 4e, but while 3e combat was rather static, 4e strived to make it more dynamic. The real time it took to finish a combat didn't change much, but the in-game time changed: in 3e even high-level combat was typically over after 3-4 rounds, in 4e it could easily take twice as many rounds (or more).I consider 5e a continuation of 2e. It's a 'back-to-the-roots' edition for players who didn't enjoy 4e _or_ 3e. It was also important that it felt like a streamlined and less clunky game to players who had grown tired of Pathfinder (which isn't really all that different from 3e and didn't manage to get rid of any of its problems). But for me 5e didn't solve anything. It made me turn away again from D&amp;D, looking for 'better' RPG systems.But I've also been spoiled by the tactical combats 4e offered. Combat in most other systems really feels dull compared to it. Fortunately, this isn't a problem if your games don't focus on combats, though.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Jhaelen, post: 7023927, member: 46713"] I'm quite sure nothing about 4e's design was the result of 'randomness'. 4e was mainly designed to address the (perceived?) shortcomings of 3e, an edition that had been generally well received and brought many players back to D&D (myself included) after they'd grown disenchanted with it when 2e didn't represent enough of an evolution to allow it to compete with more modern RPG systems. Combat in 3e was just as tactical and involved as in 4e, but while 3e combat was rather static, 4e strived to make it more dynamic. The real time it took to finish a combat didn't change much, but the in-game time changed: in 3e even high-level combat was typically over after 3-4 rounds, in 4e it could easily take twice as many rounds (or more). I consider 5e a continuation of 2e. It's a 'back-to-the-roots' edition for players who didn't enjoy 4e _or_ 3e. It was also important that it felt like a streamlined and less clunky game to players who had grown tired of Pathfinder (which isn't really all that different from 3e and didn't manage to get rid of any of its problems). But for me 5e didn't solve anything. It made me turn away again from D&D, looking for 'better' RPG systems. But I've also been spoiled by the tactical combats 4e offered. Combat in most other systems really feels dull compared to it. Fortunately, this isn't a problem if your games don't focus on combats, though. [/QUOTE]

Verification