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
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions
The Best Thing from 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="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 6582733" data-attributes="member: 6790260"><p>Fully agreed. I've not played much beyond the early levels of 4e (much to my lament), but you never had less than three "cards in your hand" so to speak, and working with your allies means you could treat their contributions as invisible fourth/fifth/etc. "cards" as well.</p><p></p><p> </p><p></p><p>Ehh. You're taking a rather extreme stance here. I don't think Sadras's position is nearly that unsubtle and subjectivist.</p><p></p><p>Because, "fact is," there <em>is</em> such a thing as being blinded by options. It may be no fault of the game per se, but it is entirely possible to see a sheet full of facts and <em>feel</em> like those facts are the precise, delineated extent of what you can do, with zero room for interpretation, creativity, or improvisation. Of course, it is <em>provably</em> untrue that 4e prevents any of these things--references in the core books, as well as Dungeon and Dragon articles, can demonstrate the designers' explicitly stated intent on that regard--but just because the books make that clear doesn't mean that people will <em>grok</em> that that is clear.</p><p></p><p>An analogy I have used elsewhere is that 4e is like a toolbox of specialized tools, and you get to have fun seeing what novel uses you can come up with for them; older-style D&D, especially the earliest versions where character sheets were sparse at best, were like having few very general tools and needing to pull from the environment itself to flesh out the additional features you needed. Both can leave someone feeling "trapped." Someone used to the former feels stuck, not having enough ways to interact with the environment to start with; someone used to the latter feels stuck, like the tools they have are the only tools they're allowed to use.</p><p></p><p>It's a really frustrating problem from both ends, because for whatever reason, if you change the size of the toolset people start with, somehow the adaptive-creative process shuts down...no matter <em>which</em> direction you move (larger or smaller toolsets). It's not JUST a "your conception is wrong, change" it problem, but it's also not JUST "the game needs to be different" either. It's more about presentation, communication, and what people are comfortable playing. Perhaps that, alone, is enough to explain it: people feel <em>uncomfortable</em> with toolboxes that aren't the size they're used to, and that lack of comfort leads to turtling up and refusing to be creative because creativity is <em>dangerous</em> when you don't know what you're doing.</p><p></p><p> </p><p></p><p>In general, I agree. Revolution connotes sudden or violent change; evolution connotes a slow, even imperceptible change.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Now, unfortunately, *that* is a misuse of the term. "Evolution," despite the common perception, has no favored direction. Evolution is adaptation. Adaptation only considers the situation of the moment; it has no moral center, no higher calling, no contextual significance beyond (in a biological sense) "this contributed to not-death, or avoided death." Atavism and loss of previously-acquired adaptation is perfectly in keeping with the meaning of "evolution." For instance, cetaceans lost their limbs and cave-dwelling creatures lose their eyes or pigmentation, but both are evolution despite being "changing back" as you put it.</p><p></p><p>4e evolved in a climate where selective pressures favored (1) solving the LFQW problem, (2) addressing the unstated but clearly present "class tiers" and particularly the problem of "dead weight" (or totally overshadowed) classes, and (3) addressing the fact that play only held to typical campaign expectations for a very small range of levels (generally 1-6 or 1-8, certainly no higher than 1-10). Several of these issues were right at the forefront of the designers' minds, and we have explicit statements <a href="http://archive.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4spot/20090313" target="_blank">from Rob Heinsoo</a> on basically all of them--and how much he had to fight internal efforts to prevent these solutions from happening.</p><p></p><p>5e evolved in a climate of (IMO, often reactionary) interest in tradition. The OSR movement and Pathfinder both picked up steam in this period, and WotC got burned BAD for their commitment to the OGL (which I think did good things for gaming as a whole, but bad things to WotC specifically). Further, there's been an explosion of new development--13th Age, Numenera, Dungeon World, and more than a few video games or book series adapted into RPG format. The playtest period was preoccupied, almost humorously so, with getting the "feel" right and often deprecated (intentionally or not) the mathematical design.</p><p></p><p>Both games were reactions to the climate that their design began in. I just think it's unfortunate that 4e addressed the problems most people recognize apply to 3e (and, to a slightly lesser extent, PF), while 5e "addresses" the problems of 4e by simply abandoning (almost) everything 4e achieved, with token or hollow references remaining (e.g. Hit Dice are NOT Healing Surges, at-will cantrips are NOT at-will powers, etc.)</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 6582733, member: 6790260"] Fully agreed. I've not played much beyond the early levels of 4e (much to my lament), but you never had less than three "cards in your hand" so to speak, and working with your allies means you could treat their contributions as invisible fourth/fifth/etc. "cards" as well. Ehh. You're taking a rather extreme stance here. I don't think Sadras's position is nearly that unsubtle and subjectivist. Because, "fact is," there [I]is[/I] such a thing as being blinded by options. It may be no fault of the game per se, but it is entirely possible to see a sheet full of facts and [I]feel[/I] like those facts are the precise, delineated extent of what you can do, with zero room for interpretation, creativity, or improvisation. Of course, it is [I]provably[/I] untrue that 4e prevents any of these things--references in the core books, as well as Dungeon and Dragon articles, can demonstrate the designers' explicitly stated intent on that regard--but just because the books make that clear doesn't mean that people will [I]grok[/I] that that is clear. An analogy I have used elsewhere is that 4e is like a toolbox of specialized tools, and you get to have fun seeing what novel uses you can come up with for them; older-style D&D, especially the earliest versions where character sheets were sparse at best, were like having few very general tools and needing to pull from the environment itself to flesh out the additional features you needed. Both can leave someone feeling "trapped." Someone used to the former feels stuck, not having enough ways to interact with the environment to start with; someone used to the latter feels stuck, like the tools they have are the only tools they're allowed to use. It's a really frustrating problem from both ends, because for whatever reason, if you change the size of the toolset people start with, somehow the adaptive-creative process shuts down...no matter [I]which[/I] direction you move (larger or smaller toolsets). It's not JUST a "your conception is wrong, change" it problem, but it's also not JUST "the game needs to be different" either. It's more about presentation, communication, and what people are comfortable playing. Perhaps that, alone, is enough to explain it: people feel [I]uncomfortable[/I] with toolboxes that aren't the size they're used to, and that lack of comfort leads to turtling up and refusing to be creative because creativity is [I]dangerous[/I] when you don't know what you're doing. In general, I agree. Revolution connotes sudden or violent change; evolution connotes a slow, even imperceptible change. Now, unfortunately, *that* is a misuse of the term. "Evolution," despite the common perception, has no favored direction. Evolution is adaptation. Adaptation only considers the situation of the moment; it has no moral center, no higher calling, no contextual significance beyond (in a biological sense) "this contributed to not-death, or avoided death." Atavism and loss of previously-acquired adaptation is perfectly in keeping with the meaning of "evolution." For instance, cetaceans lost their limbs and cave-dwelling creatures lose their eyes or pigmentation, but both are evolution despite being "changing back" as you put it. 4e evolved in a climate where selective pressures favored (1) solving the LFQW problem, (2) addressing the unstated but clearly present "class tiers" and particularly the problem of "dead weight" (or totally overshadowed) classes, and (3) addressing the fact that play only held to typical campaign expectations for a very small range of levels (generally 1-6 or 1-8, certainly no higher than 1-10). Several of these issues were right at the forefront of the designers' minds, and we have explicit statements [URL="http://archive.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4spot/20090313"]from Rob Heinsoo[/URL] on basically all of them--and how much he had to fight internal efforts to prevent these solutions from happening. 5e evolved in a climate of (IMO, often reactionary) interest in tradition. The OSR movement and Pathfinder both picked up steam in this period, and WotC got burned BAD for their commitment to the OGL (which I think did good things for gaming as a whole, but bad things to WotC specifically). Further, there's been an explosion of new development--13th Age, Numenera, Dungeon World, and more than a few video games or book series adapted into RPG format. The playtest period was preoccupied, almost humorously so, with getting the "feel" right and often deprecated (intentionally or not) the mathematical design. Both games were reactions to the climate that their design began in. I just think it's unfortunate that 4e addressed the problems most people recognize apply to 3e (and, to a slightly lesser extent, PF), while 5e "addresses" the problems of 4e by simply abandoning (almost) everything 4e achieved, with token or hollow references remaining (e.g. Hit Dice are NOT Healing Surges, at-will cantrips are NOT at-will powers, etc.) [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions
The Best Thing from 4E
Top