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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Argyle King" data-source="post: 5621570" data-attributes="member: 58416">I think this illustrates why I feel there are some game types and story styles which I feel 4E doesn't do well.  I understand the reasoning behind why 4E divides the different parts of the game, and I understand the potential balance issues if that were not the case, but I would still prefer for those divisions to not be there.  In the context of 4E, I think they are needed because of the way in which some areas of the system are built.  However, I highly enjoy games in which those divisions aren't there; as such, I usually pick up a different system when I want to play in that manner.  There are rpg systems which are built in such way that they can incorporate those elements without breaking the other aspects of the game.I think where D&D 3E failed was in trying to serve two masters as the same time.  It held a lot of the same ideas that 4E has - wealth by level, some amount of magic item Christmas tree, levels, etc, etc.  Though, at the same time, it seemed to be trying to passingly mimic some of the universal toolkit rpgs.  Trying to do both at the same time led to some of the issues you mentioned such as how someone might use out of encounter wealth to break the wealth by level guidelines and unbalance the game.  It also lead to a few issues which I previously mentioned such as the fact that having an army of low level followers ends up being useless in actual play because they still get crushed by even just one high level enemy.  One of the successes of 4E (IMO) was to give D&D a more focused direction and a more solid identity by highlighting elements which are part of the style of play the design wanted.  I think it's smart to make the game more focused, but that increase focus also meant dropping some elements which weren't part of that focus and moving even further away than 3E was from some of those game types I might like to play.To bring things full circle in this post, I'll touch the idea that this response contains many reasons why I earlier said I wouldn't feel 4E would give me the Conan experience that I want.  Conan isn't always just a simple adventurer.  Sometimes he might lead an army, be a captain of a pirate ship, or any manner of other things.  I would want more granularity involved in those tasks because I would want them to be balanced against other options (and because I would enjoy the further level of detail.)  I would want both sides of the game to be equally supported for that style of campaign; I'd prefer there not be two sides at all, but just one game.  There are many many things 4E can do quite well.  However, I believe that style of play does not typically tend to be one of them.</blockquote>

Verification