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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="innerdude" data-source="post: 5886596" data-attributes="member: 85870">And this is a huge point, because the response to this need to agree on playstyles was 4e .... where the rules in large part negated the need to have a social contract in place for optimization, conflict, and class balance "trouble." If, as a designer, you view the D&D ruleset as primarily a vehicle to combat resolution, then removing the need for that social contract probably seems like a high-minded, absolutely necessary step for the game to evolve. At it's core, 4e's seductive undertones are, "Don't be beholden to the whims and fancies of DMs and players. Build the character YOU want, and it will work. Never feel useless, never let those Wizards and CoDzillas rule you again." It's a powerful, persuasive argument to the right kind of players and groups. And while there were certainly other avenues to pursue the goal of inter-class balance than the sum total of 4e's approach, 4e definitely solved "it" better than any other edition of D&D to date. I have zero problem with the goal as stated; I'm actually drawn to it. I also think there are lots of ways to approach that goal that D&D has yet to explore.(If there is a flaw in this view, as Ranes states below, it's the assumption that the need for inter-party "balance," and thus the removal of a need for an active social contract governing "balance" in playstyle, was important enough that other elements of robustness were sacrificed, generally affecting groups that DON'T treat combat resolution as the primary raison d'etre of RPGs.)</blockquote>

Verification