Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="ThatGuyThere" data-source="post: 5531477" data-attributes="member: 36764">As a non-4th-Edition person, listening to the 4th-Edition people talking recently, I'd say, &quot;Now&quot;.&nbsp;But I'd also say, &quot;Well, maybe.&quot;&nbsp;I think the analogy to &quot;jump the shark&quot; is actually apt. The &quot;Jump the Shark&quot; episode was when the creative center of Happy Days shifted - the moment the work went from Being About What It Was When It Started to Being About Something More Than That. And I think 4th Edition is doing that, right now.&nbsp;And yes, that can fail. Dismally. And has, often, in popular culture. But someone earlier (1st page) said something telling - Happy Days &lt;literally&gt; &quot;jumped the shark&quot; in it's fifth season, out of eleven seasons total, and is remembered as one of the finest shows on television. All in the Family became Archie Bunker's Place. Smallville went from &quot;meteor freaks and a subdued superhero tone&quot; to Doomsday, Major Zod and Darkseid.&nbsp;(I'm specifically aiming for ones that are generally considered a &quot;mixed bag&quot; of preferring before-and-after the 'direction change'.)&nbsp;4th Edition is maturing - and most definitely changing - as a game. Essentials - and remember, I'm only talking from arm's length, here - changed the way the game worked (how classes were set up), without actually changing how the game worked (ie, math). They're beginning to work with the engine in new and interesting ways; I'd fully expect at least some &quot;speculative&quot; works, similar to Magic of Incarnum, Book of 9 Swords, and so forth, testing the edges and limits of the engine, and trying to use it's strengths (and there are many) to cover it's weaknesses (and there are some).&nbsp;Yes, there's a chance - a good chance, I'd say - 4th Edition will not be &quot;the same game&quot; two years from now, in the same way sitting at a 3.5 table 2/3rds of the way through and seeing a Warlock, a Scout, a Warmage, and a Healer instead of any &quot;core&quot; classes made it &quot;not the same game&quot;. That doesn't mean it's a bad thing (although it might be bad for one given person, personally).&nbsp;I'd say we're too early on Wizard's direction-change and development vector to decide the game's a failure. There's still hundreds of directions it could go (including backwards).&nbsp;So, again, I answer the OP with, &quot;Right now - but that may turn out to be a good thing&quot;.&nbsp;Edited to note - That 3.5 table badly needs a tank. I'd have probably rolled a Lawful Incarnate.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="ThatGuyThere, post: 5531477, member: 36764"] As a non-4th-Edition person, listening to the 4th-Edition people talking recently, I'd say, "Now". But I'd also say, "Well, maybe." I think the analogy to "jump the shark" is actually apt. The "Jump the Shark" episode was when the creative center of Happy Days shifted - the moment the work went from Being About What It Was When It Started to Being About Something More Than That. And I think 4th Edition is doing that, right now. And yes, that can fail. Dismally. And has, often, in popular culture. But someone earlier (1st page) said something telling - Happy Days <literally> "jumped the shark" in it's fifth season, out of eleven seasons total, and is remembered as one of the finest shows on television. All in the Family became Archie Bunker's Place. Smallville went from "meteor freaks and a subdued superhero tone" to Doomsday, Major Zod and Darkseid. (I'm specifically aiming for ones that are generally considered a "mixed bag" of preferring before-and-after the 'direction change'.) 4th Edition is maturing - and most definitely changing - as a game. Essentials - and remember, I'm only talking from arm's length, here - changed the way the game worked (how classes were set up), without actually changing how the game worked (ie, math). They're beginning to work with the engine in new and interesting ways; I'd fully expect at least some "speculative" works, similar to Magic of Incarnum, Book of 9 Swords, and so forth, testing the edges and limits of the engine, and trying to use it's strengths (and there are many) to cover it's weaknesses (and there are some). Yes, there's a chance - a good chance, I'd say - 4th Edition will not be "the same game" two years from now, in the same way sitting at a 3.5 table 2/3rds of the way through and seeing a Warlock, a Scout, a Warmage, and a Healer instead of any "core" classes made it "not the same game". That doesn't mean it's a bad thing (although it might be bad for one given person, personally). I'd say we're too early on Wizard's direction-change and development vector to decide the game's a failure. There's still hundreds of directions it could go (including backwards). So, again, I answer the OP with, "Right now - but that may turn out to be a good thing". Edited to note - That 3.5 table badly needs a tank. I'd have probably rolled a Lawful Incarnate. [/QUOTE]

Verification