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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6093723" data-attributes="member: 42582">I don't think I was clear in what I meant by "assymetric".In 4e, every class (except for Essentials martial classes) has at-will, encounter and dialy resources of roughly comparable effectiveness. There are exceptions - utilies can come in different mixes of at-will, encounter and daily, classes have different numbers of healing surges, and psionic encounter powers are a bit funky - but these differences are modest relative to the symmetry.In D&Dnext, fighters have overwhelmingly at-will abilities. Where as wizards, for their effectiveness, rely extenisvely on their daily resources. This is the assymetry I was referring to.The symmetry of 4e means that two different playstyles are possible - GM controls extended rest frequency, or players control extended rest frequency - and the balance of effectiveness between players won't suffer either way. Hence the game does not mandate any particular approach to the frequency of extended rests.Conversely, the assymmtery of Next means that unless the GM enforces an "adventuring day" of more-or-less regular length (measured in XP of challenge confronted), the balance of effectiveness between classes will break down.My concern is that, even if I wanted to play a game that mandates an adventuring day in this way - and I'm not 100% sure that I do - D&Dnext curretly does not seem to have the capacity to give effect to that mandate other than via a style of GM force that I really don't enjoy. And as I said, I can't even see where that capacity would be built into the system, because of the seeming lack of points at which metagame mechanics might gain leverage.While I'm hardly allergic to flattery, I think you're doing Mearls et all a disservice here. They're clever designers, and they have looked at as many games as I have, and I can all-but-guarantee have read all Ron Edwards essays too, even if they don't always admit to it!They understand "modern"/indie RPG design. But for what I regard as fairly obvious reasons, they are trying to make a game that will not feel like a modern/indie game. I don't begrudge them that goal, either. They can do market research, I assume (although the 4e experience suggests that they're not perfect at it), and work out who their main market is.I don't at all dispute that they have stated a goal of building "universal D&D". I just doubt that it can be done. A friend recently gave me his copy of the AD&D 2nd ed Players Handbook, and I've been reading through it for the first time. I just don't see how a single set of mechanics - particularly player resource mechanics and mechanics that allocate various forms of authority across players and GM - can deliver both the experience that that book promises (GM force at every turn) and the experience that 4e promises (GM force regulated and channelled at nearly every turn).I haven't followed all the date tags, so I'm not sure if your reply to me pre- or postdates the Mearls warlord tweet. I would think the decision not to include martial healing, in conjunction with a range of other information (like the way fighters and rogues are designed), counts as at least some evidence in favour of my contention.I don't see the irony at all. Of course people have the right not to buy 4e if they don't like it. And one completely forseeable consequence of such a choice is that WotC may experience commercial problems. That's pretty much inherent to a market economy. People who choose not to purchase a firm's goods and services may cause that firm to fail.But I'm also not sure I understand why you regard me as being in a different position with respect to D&Dnext from that which others have found themselves in in relation to 4e. They didn't like 4e, and chose not to play it. I don't really care for D&Dnext, and choose not to play it. Is it because it's a playtest that you think it's different?I have a full time job. I have a family. And I have other hobbies (though fantasy RPGing is my biggest one). Playtesting is not free, for me - it would require me to spend time playing a system that I don't really enjoy.I fill in the occasional survey, but haven't been very diligent since the spell one, which required me to trawl through page after page of 3E spells, many of which I didn't recognise from either my AD&D or my 4e experience. That survey was written so as to be virtually incomprehensible to a 4e D&D player who didn't know earlier editions (and so wouldn't even have the concept of spell levels).As for my prolificness, I have a pretty deep (if mostly irrational!) passion for fantasy RPGing. And I care a lot about RPG mechanics. But as I said I have no special attachment to D&D as a system. I spent 19 years GMing Rolemaster (adapting material from other fantasy RPGs, especially D&D - both AD&D and 3E). I now GM 4e, but adapt material from other fantasy RPGs, including B/X and 3E D&D/d20. In the future I hope to GM Burning Wheel, adapting material from the Penumbra line of d20 modules and probably using a version of Greyhawk as my setting.For me what I care about in D&D is primarily the story elements - what I call "gonzo fantasy". The D&D system itself is not that important to me as an RPGer, other than as an object of intellectual inquiry - 4e is in my view a great RPG, but 3E does nothing for me, and personally I couldn't imagine playing AD&D these days.</blockquote>

Verification