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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 6101384" data-attributes="member: 82106">Yeah, I don't know anymore, it can be very hard to tell the nuances of different people's positions apart or remember precisely who split which hair which way <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />Overall, I mostly agree, there was less intentionality there in 4e's design in terms of creating a narrativist system than there was a sort of stumbling into it perhaps. I think chances are there were divided goals. Some of the design team was working on a fairly classic simulationist exploration game and some others were working on a more modern encounter-centered game, and they were all somewhat constrained by various D&D sacred cows and conventions. At times people claim 4e was 'half-baked' and should have stayed in development for another year. I think they're wrong. I think the game is overdone in a sense. It was never going to become more coherent because the agenda wasn't clear. More time would have made a WORSE game, or not a better one anyway.As for Mearls, I just don't think he is being a DA, he's expressing his preferences, as they exist right now today, not as they were in 2002 when he felt differently. It is also not easy to pigeon-hole people, especially ones with a depth of knowledge and understanding on a subject which Mike must have. It is quite possible to hold contradictory opinions or express different opinions in different moods or settings. Mike may also feel that he's got some sort of obligation or business reason to be the advocate for a group of players that express certain opinions. This wouldn't be being a DA, it would be being a permanent champion. So, I don't know to what degree Mike agreed with 4e's direction, drove it, resisted it, whatever. It doesn't matter. I don't think any one person at WotC ever managed to fully appreciate all the features of 4e and how it ends up naturally playing. Sure, that was an unplanned thing perhaps, but whatever, it is what people like about 4e now. Mike seems to be either ignorant of or antithetical to it in his role as DDN's chief designer. I think [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] is right about DDN. You are correct that it is more encounter/scene centered than pre-4e, but it is a long ways from 4e, where NOTHING but a couple oddball effects project beyond the encounter capsule. This makes DDN less currently suited to 4e-like play, but it could possibly be fixed. The one area that seems HARD to fix though? The heavy balance shift towards daily resources, especially for casters, and the weakening of primarily encounter resources like HS (which are daily, but being fairly abundant the real core of it is on the encounter centered hit point total). HD in DDN are VERY much separated from scenes. I certainly CAN imagine a DDN design path from where it is now to something more like what I'm after, but it doesn't seem like a very likely path given the things Mike says and where his head seems to be at NOW. El Madhi will continue to harp on waiting and seeing, but I have to agree with Pemerton et al, there's ample evidence of where DDN is headed at this time, and it isn't my preference that it is likely to serve. Oh well.</blockquote>

Verification