Rambling...
Multiple thoughts bouncing around lately, though I haven't been able to put any real point behind them...
The D&D "Edition Wars" continue as the new edition material starts to come out. So far, I have been refraining from diving into any of it personally. Why? I see a combination of inapplicability, as I'm not currently playing or looking to start a D&D game, and the fact that I'm very weary of early buy-in (financially or emotionally) these days. This hasn't stopped me from being aware of second-hand commentary and analysis. Tobold's posts have been largely critical (he's a fan of 4E), whereas tashiro seems quite taken with the new rules.
A lot of the verdicts seem to come back to perspective on whether something is a feature or bug. Damage seems very spiky, especially at low levels, which can lead to one-shot deaths. That's good if you like that sort of thing, and bad if you don't. Mages have been given more combat-effectiveness at low levels than older editions, but still gain a lot more utility than fighters could ever hope for as levels increase. It definitely sounds like a step "back" from 4E's direction, but 4E appealed to people who like tactical parity and balance between classes. So whether the new material is improvement or not seems to be very, very subjective.
And I'm not sure whether I like it or not. I find it easy to agree with a lot of the arguments on both sides. It isn't fun to have a character splattered the first time they enter combat, but it's also not very fun to whittle away at large health pools with no real sense of impact or threat. Pre-4E mages were limited and boring at low levels, but ridiculously powerful at high levels, compared to non-casters. 4E offered a lot of inter-class balance, but it also took away a lot of the flavor distinction between casters and non-casters. I don't really feel able to say, even just from my own opinion, what is "best."
Ultimately, I'm convinced it boils down to the small-scale. Any of the systems can be used to run an enjoyable game - it depends on the group and how they use those rules. I've played enjoyable campaigns in 2E and 3E, and what limited exposure I had to 4E wasn't really hindered by the rules themselves even if some of it felt radically different. Some systems fit certain sensibilities better than others, but I think the "on the ground" running of and participation in the game is far more important to how enjoyable the experience is than any rules.
-
I'm still playing through Baldur's Gate 2, which has been an odd experience at times. Some things I remember very clearly. Some things I don't remember at all. This makes me wonder if I finished the game back when I originally played it. I sort of think I did, and I picked up the expansion, but very little has seemed familiar since pushing past Chapter 2. Yet I do seem to recall a zone/scene that hasn't come up yet, so I don't know. Maybe the early-game content is more familiar simply because I played it more than once. I don't recall the tromping around in the Underdark that I'm doing, for example.
I've been reading a little about the beta Warlords of Draenor, and... well... it hasn't been inspiring. Admittedly, it's only beta information, and a lot could change. What I've seen so far, however, implies that my vague guess of an October release may be overly optimistic, and the new content may not be as interesting as hoped. We'll see how opinions shift along the way, I guess.
The D&D "Edition Wars" continue as the new edition material starts to come out. So far, I have been refraining from diving into any of it personally. Why? I see a combination of inapplicability, as I'm not currently playing or looking to start a D&D game, and the fact that I'm very weary of early buy-in (financially or emotionally) these days. This hasn't stopped me from being aware of second-hand commentary and analysis. Tobold's posts have been largely critical (he's a fan of 4E), whereas tashiro seems quite taken with the new rules.
A lot of the verdicts seem to come back to perspective on whether something is a feature or bug. Damage seems very spiky, especially at low levels, which can lead to one-shot deaths. That's good if you like that sort of thing, and bad if you don't. Mages have been given more combat-effectiveness at low levels than older editions, but still gain a lot more utility than fighters could ever hope for as levels increase. It definitely sounds like a step "back" from 4E's direction, but 4E appealed to people who like tactical parity and balance between classes. So whether the new material is improvement or not seems to be very, very subjective.
And I'm not sure whether I like it or not. I find it easy to agree with a lot of the arguments on both sides. It isn't fun to have a character splattered the first time they enter combat, but it's also not very fun to whittle away at large health pools with no real sense of impact or threat. Pre-4E mages were limited and boring at low levels, but ridiculously powerful at high levels, compared to non-casters. 4E offered a lot of inter-class balance, but it also took away a lot of the flavor distinction between casters and non-casters. I don't really feel able to say, even just from my own opinion, what is "best."
Ultimately, I'm convinced it boils down to the small-scale. Any of the systems can be used to run an enjoyable game - it depends on the group and how they use those rules. I've played enjoyable campaigns in 2E and 3E, and what limited exposure I had to 4E wasn't really hindered by the rules themselves even if some of it felt radically different. Some systems fit certain sensibilities better than others, but I think the "on the ground" running of and participation in the game is far more important to how enjoyable the experience is than any rules.
-
I'm still playing through Baldur's Gate 2, which has been an odd experience at times. Some things I remember very clearly. Some things I don't remember at all. This makes me wonder if I finished the game back when I originally played it. I sort of think I did, and I picked up the expansion, but very little has seemed familiar since pushing past Chapter 2. Yet I do seem to recall a zone/scene that hasn't come up yet, so I don't know. Maybe the early-game content is more familiar simply because I played it more than once. I don't recall the tromping around in the Underdark that I'm doing, for example.
I've been reading a little about the beta Warlords of Draenor, and... well... it hasn't been inspiring. Admittedly, it's only beta information, and a lot could change. What I've seen so far, however, implies that my vague guess of an October release may be overly optimistic, and the new content may not be as interesting as hoped. We'll see how opinions shift along the way, I guess.
Comments
Post a Comment