Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="FourthBear" data-source="post: 4071433" data-attributes="member: 55846">It's a fair point.&nbsp; I think that there are several reasons for it:1)&nbsp; Many criticisms of 4e in the past have been placed in the clear context of competition with 3e.&nbsp; &quot;Why should I switch from 3e?&quot; &quot;Why do they complain about the way 3e does it?&quot;&nbsp; &quot;In 3e, I was able to do X, I don't think 4e will allow X.&quot;&nbsp; These comparisons occur not only in the initial criticisms, but often in the discussions afterwards.&nbsp; This does lead to some sloppy generalizations that all criticisms of 4e are coming from the point of view of a 3e fan.2)&nbsp; Most of the people discussing this on ENWorld are familiar with how 3e does things and were often fans.&nbsp; This makes it a clear touchstone for discussions on RPG games and D&amp;D in general. It is often easier to make points in reference to another system, as opposed to speculating on an incomplete picture of 4e.&nbsp; I would guess that broader discussions of 4e in terms of games and RPGs will be more frequent post-publication.3)&nbsp; In the design space of RPG development, especially D&amp;D development, there are likely to be many design constraints between open-ended class creation, game balance, complexity and many other factors.&nbsp; This will inevitably lead to compromises in design, since no perfect solution is likely possible.&nbsp; I think often invoking 3e is used to emphasize this by invoking the last iteration of the system.&nbsp; It is very easy to be critical of any system, when comparing it to a completely hypothetical, perfect system.&nbsp; By citing the way 3e does things, it can serve to ground the conversation by noting that no previous system has ever been perfect.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="FourthBear, post: 4071433, member: 55846"] It's a fair point. I think that there are several reasons for it: 1) Many criticisms of 4e in the past have been placed in the clear context of competition with 3e. "Why should I switch from 3e?" "Why do they complain about the way 3e does it?" "In 3e, I was able to do X, I don't think 4e will allow X." These comparisons occur not only in the initial criticisms, but often in the discussions afterwards. This does lead to some sloppy generalizations that all criticisms of 4e are coming from the point of view of a 3e fan. 2) Most of the people discussing this on ENWorld are familiar with how 3e does things and were often fans. This makes it a clear touchstone for discussions on RPG games and D&D in general. It is often easier to make points in reference to another system, as opposed to speculating on an incomplete picture of 4e. I would guess that broader discussions of 4e in terms of games and RPGs will be more frequent post-publication. 3) In the design space of RPG development, especially D&D development, there are likely to be many design constraints between open-ended class creation, game balance, complexity and many other factors. This will inevitably lead to compromises in design, since no perfect solution is likely possible. I think often invoking 3e is used to emphasize this by invoking the last iteration of the system. It is very easy to be critical of any system, when comparing it to a completely hypothetical, perfect system. By citing the way 3e does things, it can serve to ground the conversation by noting that no previous system has ever been perfect. [/QUOTE]

Verification