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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 5964325" data-attributes="member: 996">While I'm about to post some contrary opinions, I want to say that your post is one of the clearest and most forthright I've seen on these topics.  Nod.  I've never been a fan of FR, so that wasn't on my radar.  Symantic distinctions like high-elf vs eladrin are easy to ignore, or even poke fun at, you don't even have to change actual rules to do it, just labels and flavor text.  My second 4e character was an Eladrin Wizard McFighter who called himself a 'High Elf' (The PH even says that's what some call the Eladrin) and whom I'd describe out of character as a "fighter/magic-user;" he was always grubbing up ritual books because he set great store in learning as many rituals as possible.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />  I re-skinned some of his gear or class abilities as magic items (I rationalized being able to cast scorching burst all day as having a 'wand of (lesser) fire-balls'), explained that he learned magic from an ancestor's spellbook from a 'time before, when magic worked differently' (AD&D), so he'd make comments like "My ancestors notes mention memorizing Tenser's Floating Disk, but I've never been able to manage it - just as well, I suppose, since I memorized Sleep today, and I wouldn't have been able to cast it /his/ way without spending even more time re-momorizing than this ritual-casting will take..."   4e has a lot of flexibility in 'flavor,' and had a lot of nostalgic fun with that character acting a bit like a classic Elven Fighter/Magic-User (with not a single actual 'house rule' required, just a lot of messing with flavor text and backstory).  So 'feel' can be a somewhat flexible and very personal thing.   I can see how 4e doesn't quite feel like D&D, but it's a matter of degree.  I found 4e good enough on it's merits and 'close enough' to D&D that I didn't mind the different feel, and, like I said, above, I could change feel a lot just messing with flavor text while leaving the rules intact.   D&D started out emulating the broader fantasy genre (very broad, as they included HP Lovecraft among their influences), and failed to capture it in a number of ways.  It then rested on it's early success for 25 years or so, and that flawed genre-emulation because a sub-genre all it's own.  D&D went from a poor simulation of fantasy, to a perfect simulation of itself, in a way.4e is probably a better take on heroic fantasy than D&D ever had been before - with a good does of cinematic action, to boot - but that made it a very poor simulation of D&D's self-defined de-facto sub-genre.That's an articulation of the "h4ter" camp's position that's as articulate and sympathetic as I ever heard.  I wish we'd heard that sort of thing much earlier on, or better yet, instead of all the bizzare accusations of 'board game' and 'MMO' and so forth. Ultimately, though, the "h4ters'" campaign worked, and 4e is dead.  5e may even qualify as "real D&D" - that is, go back to emulating the self-referent sub-genre D&D created for itself through sheer inertia back in the day.  I'd had enough of that particular sub-genre by 1995, and even if I feel a nostalgic whim for it, I can satisfy it with a character like Varinhal or a campaign subtley tweaked in that direction or one of the odd 1e AD&D games I see at the local con each year.  4e presents me with a lot more potential, a bigger slice of the fantasy genre to explore with one system, so I'll be playing it for the foreseeable future if 5e limits itself to just the "real D&D feel."4e's the first edition that I haven't felt the need to house-rule much at all.  The mutable, divorced-from-the-mechanics approach to flavor text provide enough flexibility, and, as a DM, I do /add/ things willy-nilly, as I love creating new monsters and magic items.  In spite of not feeling the need to use them, I have come up with lots of possible variants for 4e, as I'm an inveterate rules-tinker.  As such, I've noticed a sort of sea-change in the community starting with 3e, actually.  Variants are called 'house-rules' nowadays, and accorded very little interest - and often no respect at all - "you can do that, but it's a house rule" became the cut sublime of 3.x rules debates.  RAW became sacred and inviolable.  It seemed bizarre to me, as someone who'd always modified games heavily and liked reverse-engineering them, but it was quite pronounces, and, AFAICT, still alive and well.</blockquote>

Verification