Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Why the claim of combat and class balance between the classes is mainly a forum issue. (In my opinion)
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Iosue" data-source="post: 6241290" data-attributes="member: 6680772"><p>I very much agree that PSF, while an interesting and effective way to use the 4e rule set, was not the style of play initially imagined, nor explicitly presented in the rule books (though I think there were implicit hints).</p><p></p><p>However, I don't think I can quite get on board with the above quoted portion.</p><p></p><p>It seems common wisdom that WotC's goals with D&D have been to bring "the fan base" with them from edition to edition. I don't believe that historically that has been the case. Jeff Grubb has explicitly said that the company did not care if any TSR-era players got on board with 3e, and that they even made t-shirts denigrating 2nd Ed. The company has always been looking for new players, and their design strategies have reflected that. 3.x made a deliberate move from the abstractness and baroqueness that had always been a hallmark of D&D to create a unified system with elaborate character generation. This was a move to grab players who heretofore had not been interested in D&D, and along with other factors (new edition buzz, OGL, etc) was very successful.</p><p></p><p>Likewise, 4e made a distinct move away from the rules-as-physics aspects of 3e and pursued a kind of design that tapped into Eurogames, MMORPGs, and indie design, combined with an ambitious digital initiative and introduction of a subscription model of service. Again, the main impetus here was not to bring along "the fan base", but to grab new players who heretofore had not been interested in D&D. It was again successful, if not to the degree hoped for when the pitch was initially made.</p><p></p><p>5e, likewise, looks very much like an attempt to get back to basics, with a very easy buy-in and adjustable complexity. But I do not believe they are really looking to bring along the 4e fan base, or even to bring back the Pathfinder players, or to court OSR/TSR players. I do think that, unlike in previous editions, they are interested in picking up money from those fans in the form of adventures that can be usable, with some conversion, to various historical editions. But I don't believe they expect people to drop their current editions and jump wholeheartedly on the Next train.</p><p></p><p>To be sure, WotC is always happy when people cross over to the next edition. But the essential conceit of RPGs makes this a poor strategy to rely on in the main. In the end, it's a limitless game. Once you buy a set of rules, you never <em>need</em> to buy anything more, and certainly you don't need to buy a new edition. And most casual gamers don't. TSR left behind millions of players with 2e. WotC left behind millions of players with 3e. They left behind millions of players with 4e. They will undoubtedly leave behind millions of players with 5e, as far as the core books go.</p><p></p><p>The 3e/4e split may be based on rules-as-simulator versus rules-as-balanced-action-resolution. But by the same token, the 2e/3e split was based rules-as-DM-guidelines versus rules-as-simulator. What is at play here is not playstyle agendas (i.e., gamist v. narrativist v. simulationist), but rather the role of rules as a mediator. Mearls has not talked much about "telling stories", "simulating a genre" or "creating challenges", but he's talked a lot about "simplicity", and "letting the rules get out of the way". Like it's predecessors, 5e is making a move away from the previous paradigm -- the interaction with the rules themselves providing the fun (be that 3e style character building/system mastery or 4e style finely-tuned tactical combat), towards a paradigm of simple rules with optional complexity and greater reliance on the DM/group to decide the degree of rules desired, and their role thereof. And like it's predecessors, this is less about moving the fan base to the next edition than it is about bringing in people who heretofore have not been playing D&D.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Iosue, post: 6241290, member: 6680772"] I very much agree that PSF, while an interesting and effective way to use the 4e rule set, was not the style of play initially imagined, nor explicitly presented in the rule books (though I think there were implicit hints). However, I don't think I can quite get on board with the above quoted portion. It seems common wisdom that WotC's goals with D&D have been to bring "the fan base" with them from edition to edition. I don't believe that historically that has been the case. Jeff Grubb has explicitly said that the company did not care if any TSR-era players got on board with 3e, and that they even made t-shirts denigrating 2nd Ed. The company has always been looking for new players, and their design strategies have reflected that. 3.x made a deliberate move from the abstractness and baroqueness that had always been a hallmark of D&D to create a unified system with elaborate character generation. This was a move to grab players who heretofore had not been interested in D&D, and along with other factors (new edition buzz, OGL, etc) was very successful. Likewise, 4e made a distinct move away from the rules-as-physics aspects of 3e and pursued a kind of design that tapped into Eurogames, MMORPGs, and indie design, combined with an ambitious digital initiative and introduction of a subscription model of service. Again, the main impetus here was not to bring along "the fan base", but to grab new players who heretofore had not been interested in D&D. It was again successful, if not to the degree hoped for when the pitch was initially made. 5e, likewise, looks very much like an attempt to get back to basics, with a very easy buy-in and adjustable complexity. But I do not believe they are really looking to bring along the 4e fan base, or even to bring back the Pathfinder players, or to court OSR/TSR players. I do think that, unlike in previous editions, they are interested in picking up money from those fans in the form of adventures that can be usable, with some conversion, to various historical editions. But I don't believe they expect people to drop their current editions and jump wholeheartedly on the Next train. To be sure, WotC is always happy when people cross over to the next edition. But the essential conceit of RPGs makes this a poor strategy to rely on in the main. In the end, it's a limitless game. Once you buy a set of rules, you never [i]need[/i] to buy anything more, and certainly you don't need to buy a new edition. And most casual gamers don't. TSR left behind millions of players with 2e. WotC left behind millions of players with 3e. They left behind millions of players with 4e. They will undoubtedly leave behind millions of players with 5e, as far as the core books go. The 3e/4e split may be based on rules-as-simulator versus rules-as-balanced-action-resolution. But by the same token, the 2e/3e split was based rules-as-DM-guidelines versus rules-as-simulator. What is at play here is not playstyle agendas (i.e., gamist v. narrativist v. simulationist), but rather the role of rules as a mediator. Mearls has not talked much about "telling stories", "simulating a genre" or "creating challenges", but he's talked a lot about "simplicity", and "letting the rules get out of the way". Like it's predecessors, 5e is making a move away from the previous paradigm -- the interaction with the rules themselves providing the fun (be that 3e style character building/system mastery or 4e style finely-tuned tactical combat), towards a paradigm of simple rules with optional complexity and greater reliance on the DM/group to decide the degree of rules desired, and their role thereof. And like it's predecessors, this is less about moving the fan base to the next edition than it is about bringing in people who heretofore have not been playing D&D. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Why the claim of combat and class balance between the classes is mainly a forum issue. (In my opinion)
Top