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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="BryonD" data-source="post: 6514297" data-attributes="member: 957">IMO, this is again a completely reasonable position, but missing the distinction in what different groups WANT from an RPG."On par" in this context is completely a gamist term.  It would be absurd of me to suggest that there are not a lot of people who express consistent concern over wizards being more powerful than fighters in 3E.  This is even true within a lot of groups which greater prefer 3E.But the reality remains that there are a lot of people who do not experience this problem.  My group, for example, typically plays through the low levels and into the mid teens.  When you have a level 15 party running, there is no doubt that the wizard can do some truly amazing things and have moments of shine that stand out amongst the party.  But I still have players who want to play fighters and come away from those L15 sessions feeling very happy with their contributions and influence on the game, all while (and this is the key part) feeling like their character was distinctly a badass fighter.  If you just want a pure and balanced tactical combat system then 4E is that.  But if you want a system that puts a simulation of individuals into challenges and says "it ain't balanced, find a solution" then 4E (for many) actually does a decidedly inferior job of that.  Those same gamist bits that make it a balanced tactical game are constantly there reminding you that being a balanced tactical game is at the forefront of this engine's duty.Yes, you can roleplay on 4E.  There is no slight challenge to that claim.  But I can roleplay my character in Descent.  And I can make a 100-point GURPS character and roleplay Superman on him.  Nothing can ever stop anyone from roleplaying.  But the mechanics on these systems do an inferior job of supporting that immersive part of roleplaying.  The people at the table will be the same.  And no matter how good you are at immersing yourself in ANY roleplaying opportunity, if that is what is important to you, then having a system that support that immersion is what you want, then why not have a system that puts that as a more important matter than balance?Interestingly, in my group there are two players who almost always play the wizard (or other comparable class).  And both of these players frequently play fighters when they are not playing wizards.  and they find them both equally (very) fun.  I'm confident that if you sat them down and pressed them on the differences in "blasting" power, they would agree with you.  But (and I'm guessing here) I also think they would look at you a little strange for getting hung up on the question.  Because they don't look at it as percentages and d6s.  They look at it as characters is a quasi-realistic asymmetrical world and they are facing challenges and looking for creative solutions which stack the deck in their favor.  But a couple key points are that I do, again, agree that there are even highly pro-3E groups who share the inequity concern.  So obviously this is just one piece of the bigger puzzle of why different editions are popular or not.  And second, it is amazing to me that I've run into so many 4E myrmidons who are incapable of accepting that the distinction I've described above can even exist.  As to 5E, I haven't played high enough level to truly judge yet.  But it does seem to have split the difference.  I don't really care though.  If it works great as a character simulator and then balance is built onto that without negatively impacting that first priority, then excellent.  I think 5E still needs some major gaps filled.  But the core system gets the job done so far.</blockquote>

Verification