Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="LightPhoenix" data-source="post: 4021598" data-attributes="member: 115">Well, D&amp;D pretty much is about kicking ass and taking names.&nbsp; You don't need a game system to roleplay.&nbsp; You do need a game system to... er, play a game.&nbsp; Unless you're playing Calvinball, obviously.The problem that existed, and that 4E has as one of its design goals to rectify, is that not every class was fun to play in combat, where the meat of the game is.&nbsp; One approach in 2E/3E was to take a class like that (Cleric) and make it rediculously powerful.&nbsp; Another approach (Bard) was to ignore the problem altogether and call it &quot;roleplaying.&quot;&nbsp; This, of course, was a fallacy, because rolelaying and playing the game are two seperate, albeit complementary, things.Saying that the Bard is the king of roleplaying is also a fallacy, because roleplaying is not part of playing the game.&nbsp; Therefore, it shouldn't be a feature of the class.&nbsp; Or in simpler terms, mechanics should not dictate roleplaying, and vice versa.&nbsp; Claiming that as balance is short-changing the Bard.It is possible to design a class to be versatile and still useful in combat, where the game is.&nbsp; You cited the prime example - the Wizard.&nbsp; I dare say that every class is going to be a little more versatile in 4E.&nbsp; The problem with the Bard is that, within the context of the game system - ie kicking ass and taking names - the Bard is technically versatile but exceedingly weak within the system.&nbsp; The intent is to change that.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="LightPhoenix, post: 4021598, member: 115"] Well, D&D pretty much [i]is[/i] about kicking ass and taking names. You don't need a game system to roleplay. You do need a game system to... er, play a game. Unless you're playing Calvinball, obviously. The problem that existed, and that 4E has as one of its design goals to rectify, is that not every class was fun to play [i]in combat[/i], where the meat of the game is. One approach in 2E/3E was to take a class like that (Cleric) and make it rediculously powerful. Another approach (Bard) was to ignore the problem altogether and call it "roleplaying." This, of course, was a fallacy, because rolelaying and playing the game are two seperate, albeit complementary, things. Saying that the Bard is the king of roleplaying is also a fallacy, because roleplaying is not part of playing the game. Therefore, it shouldn't be a feature of the class. Or in simpler terms, mechanics should not dictate roleplaying, and vice versa. Claiming that as balance is short-changing the Bard. It is possible to design a class to be versatile and still useful in combat, where the game is. You cited the prime example - the Wizard. I dare say that every class is going to be a little more versatile in 4E. The problem with the Bard is that, within the context of the game system - ie kicking ass and taking names - the Bard is technically versatile but exceedingly weak within the system. The intent is to change that. [/QUOTE]

Verification