Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Guest&nbsp; 85555" data-source="post: 5821462"><p>Good is pretty subjective here. For some people 3e was good, for others it was awful. For some 4e was good, for others it was terrible. In these discussions i think folks are assuming their oreferences are more universal than they really are (not everyone agrees on the best way to balance, not everyone agrees on parity being good/bad, not everyone agrees on whether unified mechanics are good/bad, etc). The only measure i can think of that would maybe be less subjective is how widely a mechanic is embraced or dismissed by players and GMs. If lots of people like it, then calling the game good probably makes some sense. But just look at how divided people have been over core issues like balance, healing and class features. I doubt it is as simple as one side wanting a "good" game and the other "fearing change".</p></blockquote><p></p>