Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6004062" data-attributes="member: 42582">That depends, doesn't it? If getting better makes the game more boring, then it isn't fun. Hence the pressure to scale AC with attack bonuses, so that there is still excitement and variability in combat.Provided you mostly use opponents of around the PCs' level, 4e is a pretty flat maths game. Some people deride this as "a treadmill". My own view is that they somewhat miss what 4e is aiming at (eg via the device of "tiers"): the fun part of getting better in 4e isn't that the maths changes (it is flat, because of the uniformity and transparency of scaling); it's that the fiction changes. The fictional stakes become higher and more complex, although in many ways the mathematical stakes of action resolution remain largely the same throughout the game.This is one of several respects in which 4e resembles some indie RPGs.But I don't think 5e is going to resemble an indie RPG very much, and I therefore think it will not rely solely on the fiction to carry the weight of "getting better", and I therefore think that it won't use flat maths. Or get rid of +X weapons. Etc. Which may well mean that, even as your guy is getting better, the mechanical play of the game will get less rather than more exciting - though it's too early to judge that at this stage.</blockquote>