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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ahnehnois" data-source="post: 6005853" data-attributes="member: 17106">I think that's where you're wrong. This is where the problem is. Indeed 3e has it inadequacies, and indeed there were online debates, but I don't think the content of those debates was representative of the community.ENW, for example, is a great place, but the people who post here are typically:*Old.*DMs.*Who have a lot of time on their hands.This isn't the typical rpg player at all. Thus, what gets talked about here is not representative. Other forums (such as the WotC ones themselves) are not well moderated and have been taken over by trolls and flamers, which is why I quit them. Online settings inherently comprise a somewhat radicalized element devoid of personal responsibility that allows this. Yet, it appears to me that 4e is a product of WotC reading a few forum posts and thinking they have things down.I see two major ways in which WotC really misread thungs.The first is the balance issues. There are some balance issues with 3e, sure, but they aren't as bad as what gets tossed around here, they're not really different from what was in 2e, and they're not the main problem with the system. In over ten years with some varying and diverse players, I've never seen a "god wizard" or a "CoDzilla" or any caster balance problems. In practice, most players are either not interested in or not able to build an unbalanced character. Also, most of the supposed balance issues pop up around D&D's classic "breaking point" in the level 6-8 range somewhere, while the vast majority of play is at or below those levels. That's why people play E6. I haven't run a campaign that went to double-digit levels in quite a few years. Thus, the theoretical issues that could happen with 3e usually don't in practice. There are some fixes needed, but not on the level that was done.The other, even more important one, is that WotC completely missed the zeitgeist of the past decade, and focused on a narrow group: "gamers". They assumed that current or prospective D&D players were stereotypical WoWers or some other variety of the same persona: adrenaline junkies bent on dominating a game world. In trying to make the game suitable for that customer, they ignored everyone else, and ignored the actual issues plaguing D&D. The main problems with D&D are not about balance, they're about the game not being believable enough or accessible enough for new players.It has to do with a lot of things other than content; but it definitely has a lot to do with content.True.A...generous take to sat the least.Fixing imbalance by putting everyone on the AEDU system is like fixing wage discrimination by putting everyone on the same wage, in that it's heavy-handed to the extreme and causes many more problems than it solves, doesn't address the actual problem (bad actors abusing the system), and isn't acceptable to many people.Rather than throwing out the entire mechanical structure, class balance would have been better addressed by going into each class, finding the issues, and fixing individual issues. For example, the fighter has many problems: you don't get enough from advancing as one (dead levels), the high-level feats aren't there or aren't good enough, the combat system you work within is confusing (see grapple, trip, etc.) and doesn't reward you (e.g. spellcasters can bypass the hp system while you can't). Fixes would involve clearer combat maneuver rules, a health system that allows martial characters to kill people rather than ablate hit points, interesting abilities at every level, and new high-level abilities within those rules. PF addressed some of these issues pretty well without having to reinvent things; a new system could do better.Likewise, wizards are too complex and have some unbalanced spells; fixes might involve reducing spell access and making spells less powerful and/or tougher to use, while retaining the same essential structure.This, unfortunately, is backwards. People build characters with 10 classes because one class wasn't getting them the flavor or the power they wanted. It is needlessly complex. The solution is to let them play the character they want without having to take 10 classes, not to tell them that their "build" is wrong and unbalanced and delete it from the game. The way to do this would be to increase the flexibility of class abilities and design the classes so that they are worth sticking with (something PF has made some meaningful strides towards). Ultimately, it would be addressed by letting people build characters without the constraints of classes.And this is really a backwards step. The big problem with D&D healing isn't "why do I need a cleric to heal me", it's "why was I at the brink of death and now I feel fine five minutes later" and "why did I fall of a cliff and pick myself up without a scratch". What D&D needed was a tougher health system and less powerful healing, so no one would feel said pressure to play a healer (which I've never observed), and, more importantly so someone who hasn't played D&D before can look at it and see a real scenario.I think they're unexamined not really because people are afraid to. I think they're unexamined for the same reason that news misses real practical issues or medical literature doesn't really characterize healthcare issues: because the real issues don't make for the kind of flashy debates that get people's attention, and because they're tougher to examine, more abstract and philosophical, and difficult to analyze. It's a lot easier to talk about how pun-pun the kobold is broken than it is to talk about how D&D needs to be more grounded, less jargon-heavy, and simpler.</blockquote>

Verification