Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 8634935" data-attributes="member: 6696971">Just a couple of things in response here:1)  "Ze game remains ze same" isn't something you said.  "Rules change but the game remains the same" is a quote from the archives that I can't even recall where it came from, but it was said during 4e (and was obviously not true)12)  It feels like what you're saying above is trying to mash together "ideate", "iterate", and "speciate" on the strength of shared ancestry (a chain of iteration + a reaction).  I don't agree with this conception.  Out of 10 (made-up number) design pieces, 4e is probably 2 parts iterate and 8 parts ideate to an inevitable outright speciation...putting it much, much, much closer to speciation than lineal descent from ancestor to descendant.  Its much closer to the analogy of a supercar rebuilding from the ground up for an entirely different driving experience (while keeping a very few platform legacy elements and a general aesthetic look) than using most of the parts of the prior platform (chassis, aero package, drive-train, brakes, engine location et al...and maybe just updating the engine and suspension).The evidence to support that is (i) in the deep disparity of design goals and implementation by Heinsoo et al (my post above), (ii) the extreme 3.x player reaction + trad player reaction to 4e and then the completely different reaction to 4e of a GM such as myself (with very different proclivities and interests than the prior mentioned group), (iii) the profound efforts 5e design had to go to in order to not just (a) remove the constituent genetic signature of 4e but also (most importantly) (b) the integrated design signature of 4e from 5e to make the two experiences entirely incompatible (from the GMing to the playing to the mere experience of reading the texts - the last of which was a hugely stressed part) to slake the thirst for exorcism of the 4e demon from the most vociferous parts of D&D culture (who went to truly staggering lengths to show how aggrieved they felt by 4e's brief, 4.75 year foray as the holder of the "D&D brand" and cultural beatstick), (iv) and the reality that so many 4e players who loved 4e for its "4e-itude" (not its D&Dness) don't run or play 5e or, when forced to, are doing so out of charity (as is my case when I ran it for a year) or just as a (not preferred, but tolerated) social outlet.EDIT - I forgot a (v) piece of evidence...which happens to be very topical and important to this thread!  Edwards just played 4e for the first time about a year ago.  Unsurprisingly, he loved it!  And he made pretty much the same observations about it that posters like myself and [USER=42582]@pemerton[/USER] and [USER=16586]@Campbell[/USER]  have been making forever (while making the same observations about 5e - that it is basically AD&D 3e)!  For this thread in particular, that is a pretty intense piece of evidence to overcome.  Its also not particularly great for all of the folks out there who have been saying that myself and pemerton and Campbell are delusional when it comes to the Forge/indie-design inspirations we saw in 4e!EDIT - Simply put, to get back to the main thrust of the thread, 4e plays as an extraordinarily great Gamist experience with the Skilled Play primarily at the site of the Encounter or a game-without-equal (or really even comparison) in terms of hybridizing a particular brand of Gamist (with intricate and dynamic combat)/Story Now agenda.Meanwhile, 5e is a poor-ish (just south of mediocre at best) Gamist engine at the site of both the Encounter and the Adventuring Day, possesses very little Story Now DNA (making it incompatible without extraordinary hacking) with fun classic puzzle solving in its social conflict rules and is unrivaled in its GM-directed, High Concept Simulation + Power Fantasy capacity in the D&D space.</blockquote>

Verification