Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

A Few More 4E Thoughts

Just posted this on ENWorld, but I wanted to copy it here for my own reference.

Originally Posted by "Thread Title"
Name exactly what 4E is "missing"

Well, it's missing gnome illusionists and half-orc monks for a start.

But I think one of the other current threads (I forget which one now, alas) is getting very close to it in regards to the lack of support for different playstyles. I see people on the boards here saying that 4E could easily support a low-magic game, or an all-warrior game, or what-have-you, but when I look at the books themselves it sure doesn't seem that way. Heck, the chapter on encounter design explicitly says to "magic it up" because that makes an exciting encounter.

Well, for those who like "magicked-up" encounters, no doubt it's true. On the other hand, for those (like me) who balk at things being turned up to 11, especially at 1st level, it's not just wrong but 180-degrees from what I want.

"So go play some other game!" always comes back the snarky reply. Well yeah, that's what I'm doing. So why do I care about the state of D&D? Because love it or hate it, D&D is the 900-lb. gorilla of the gaming world and depending on your circumstances may be the only thing going. In previous editions, there was enough support for my favored style of play that I could at least come close enough to what I wanted and enjoy myself, while the player across the table who wanted neon-lit wuxia could have his fun too.

Now, at least if you go by the books, anything that's not neon-lit wuxia need not apply.

That's what 4E is missing -- inclusiveness -- and I think that's why the people who dislike it are so vehement about it. Once upon a time, if you wanted to play something that wasn't already in the game, the philosophy was "Okay, we'll shoe-horn it in somehow!"

4E? "Don't want to play something from Column A or Column B? Then get the #&$@ out."

-The Gneech


Oct. 7th, 2008 10:44 pm (UTC)
Yeah. They don't need to hand you a plot, but they're pigeonholing some previously quite versatile classes, both in style of combat, and in style of play. A previous D&D version barbarian might be used for anything from a tribe of feral pre-humans, to a warrior from a tribe in africa, to a marauding hun, to a highland scottish warrior, to Conan, to every dwarf who has taken drunken, improvised, astonishingly effective double-fisted axe-flailing to a professional level.

All of this marvelous roleplaying potential in both combat and social interactions would be discarded in favor of one blanket explanation which reads kinda like a thinly veiled attempt to justify "Fighter mana".

Fuck, just admit copying from WoW and call it "rage". That would at least make *sense*.

can't have that.

Latest Month

September 2019


Page Summary

Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Tiffany Chow