My fwiw kickstarter economic analysis regarding the rift between the traditionalists and evolutionists

[Monte Carlo]

Healing surges are an exmple of a clear improvement.

 

A DM could also control the players, and thus fix the issue.

The idea that DMs can magically fill in the gaps in designs is just an excuse for shoddy, old school design.

 

It also places a lot of pressure on them, and forces players to endure endless DM fiat based situations.

 

Healing surges are far from perfect, but they're a lot better than the old school approach of basically having an argument about it- an argument only the DM can win.

 

And none of that is really notable either way since there is no DM in a single player crpg. And in a single player CRPG, boy howdy would I love to see the end of healing potion spam.

 

Wow. You'd hate me as DM. Rule Zero, baby. Rule Zero.

[Archy]

I play rpgs for the sake of immersion which I get from dialogue, story, choices, quests, interesting characters, lore and things of that nature. Gameplay, combat and all that is entirely secondary. Of course I wish they too had depth and remained interesting but its still secondary. If an rpg had the most perfect gameplay mechanics and combat ever to grace the world but the things that get me immersed failed I wouldnt play it. Prepare your flamethrowers for I also love romances, befriending companions, cutscenes, VOs and on some occasions even voiced PCs. Suppose you would call me a biowarian but bioware certainly hasnt made much games of my tastes recently. There have been some good bits but every game within the last five years has been flawed in one way or another. Some have been total failures (looking at you DA2). Theyve been dumbing down every aspect I like. Its not about watching a set characters story but forging my own. Another world and life that I can live in and affect is what gets me to play rpgs.

 

Why this project caught my interest and why I donated is because it promised depth and complexity instead of the dumbing down recent games have received. As I understand that depth and complexity will also extend to choices, dialogue, quests etc.

[ravenshrike]

Healing surges are the second stupidest mechanic I've ever come across in a PnP RPG. The stupidest being the wealth mechanic of d20 modern.

[Gatt9]

4th edition never took off as a product, and wasn't going to. It used the Bethesda approach "We don't need you nasty old fans, we're going to change everything and we'll have 10x as many new fans!". Predictably, it didn't go so well.

 

I think you are confused. This is what happened with 2nd ED. Upset fans, ones who never went back to D&D, TSR burrying...

no, no, wait - that was 3rd. WotC buys TSR, changes the game horribly, D&D fans not happy and never come back...

no, wait, it was 4th...

no,no, wait... it's 5th.

 

This happens each addition. New company or not.

 

I find it extremely funny, the 3E fans, who say how WotC ruined it with 4. The same company. Which, in it's previous edition, drastically changed the game.

 

Just admit - you like 3E. You didn't want it to change from that.

 

Everything else is hyperbolic "my team vs. there team" nonsense.

 

I should have known better than to get into this "discussion." It's as bad as most other topics on here, like Vancian.

 

I'm so tired of the snide comments and insults. Carry on the 4E bashing to your hearts content.

 

You've got alot of problems in there.

 

First, I liked 1st edition. I liked 2nd edition. I liked 3rd edition. I wasn't about to touch 4th edition.

 

Second, 4th edition didn't do well. You're welcome to be unhappy about that, but no matter how much you attack me, it still didn't do well.

 

Third, you illustrate exactly what I meant when I said WOTC let the 4th edition fans attack anyone who didn't like it. A whole bunch of handwaving, a few personal attacks, but nothing to refute what I said other than "You're wrong because you liked an edition other than 4th!".

 

We're talking about 4th edition, not Merin. If you're so invested in the 4th edition of D&D that you view statements about it as statements about yourself, then you *really* need to take some time and think about things. No one has said a word about you, all that was said was that 4th edition did not do well.

 

Healing surges are an exmple of a clear improvement. Would you rather potion spam? Or a cooldown timer on your healing potion slots, like DA does it?

Surges are a per-day resource, that allow for dangerous fights, that deplete a resource, without making that resource as silly as potions, wands, and CLW spells, that just get hurled around and render the whole thing kinda pointless. When you're out of surges, you're **** out of luck.

 

While the mechanic may have had good intentions, the implementation was immersion breaking at best. For decades Players had been trained to equate HP's to Health, and reduced HP's to wounds through myriad RPG/CRPG systems. The Healing Surge mechanic just made people think Characters were just healing themselves, which just draws impossible mental images.

 

To many, Healing Surges were a great deal more silly than potions, wands, or Clerical spells. It also ended up turning the Cleric into a Mage that can use weapons, as they then end up duplicating functionality. The role of a healer differentiates them from Mages, without it, they're just underpowered Mages with a few more buffs.

[Deadly_Nightshade]

Healing surges are the second stupidest mechanic I've ever come across in a PnP RPG. The stupidest being the wealth mechanic of d20 modern.

 

Be glad that you've never heard of a LARP called Strange Aeons - their 'rules' make even the worst look good by comparison.

 

 

EDIT:

I added a link so people know what to avoid, and no, even though they say they're based on White Wolf, they could not be further from Mind's Eye Theater (having bastardized the rules beyond recognition).

Edited October 8, 2012 by Deadly_Nightshade

[Monte Carlo]

I have to get in there first - "Lightning Bolt! Lightning Bolt!"

[Deadly_Nightshade]

EDIT: Deleted.

Edited October 8, 2012 by Deadly_Nightshade

[Amentep]

I never played 4e; there were some things in the manuals that looked good and things that looked bad (IMO). Really disliked the "4e" version of Gamma World though; it seemed fairly clunky (and I didn't like the previous version of Gamma World either so I can't say I'm too surprised).

 

But when I used to play D&D we played fast and loose with the rules anyhow; the mechanics (or fidelity to the mechanics) wasn't always something we went with, so even if I played 4e, it'd probably be a hybrid 4e+House rules Frankenstein's monster.

[happyelf]

Second, 4th edition didn't do well. You're welcome to be unhappy about that, but no matter how much you attack me, it still didn't do well.

It actually did extremy well, especially since it was the first version of dnd with a full subscription service in addition to the magazines. It's just that people compared it to the d20 boom era of 3e, which is about as fair as comparing 3e's sales to the mega-sales in the original DnD craze.

 

The claims of it doing poorly are often stated, but have never been that well supported. They're often linked to dubious claims, like the oft-cited sales numbers comparing 4e to pathfinder- in a 3 month period where 4e had hardly any releases, and pathfinder had several.

 

The reason 4e is a failure is that a bunch of people threw a huge tantrum about it, and WOTC decided it was vital to get those people back, instead of support the fanbase it has. It'll take a few years for people to realize what a bad idea that was.

 

Healing surges are an exmple of a clear improvement. Would you rather potion spam? Or a cooldown timer on your healing potion slots, like DA does it?

Surges are a per-day resource, that allow for dangerous fights, that deplete a resource, without making that resource as silly as potions, wands, and CLW spells, that just get hurled around and render the whole thing kinda pointless. When you're out of surges, you're **** out of luck.

 

While the mechanic may have had good intentions, the implementation was immersion breaking at best. For decades Players had been trained to equate HP's to Health, and reduced HP's to wounds through myriad RPG/CRPG systems. The Healing Surge mechanic just made people think Characters were just healing themselves, which just draws impossible mental images.

There's no immersion breaking involved- you just don't like it.

 

It's not fair to say 'it breaks tradition, hence it breaks immersion'. That may have broken your immersion, but for plenty of people, it made way more sense than the 15 minute adventuring day.

 

Second, it's completly false to claim that hp have been equated to wounds. In that case, why is it that fighters can take more 'wounds' than wizards before dying? Are they walking around with missing limbs?

 

Hit points have always been an abstraction, a combination of wounds, luck, willpower, and more- and the rules indicate this across multiple editions- it was often stated in the magazines and books. This is a common example of how people who trash 4e tend to creativly reinterpret the old rules and texts to suit their criticisms.

 

To many, Healing Surges were a great deal more silly than potions, wands, or Clerical spells. It also ended up turning the Cleric into a Mage that can use weapons, as they then end up duplicating functionality. The role of a healer differentiates them from Mages, without it, they're just underpowered Mages with a few more buffs.

You may feel that way, but you clearly don't understand the system very well to reach this conclusion.

 

In 4e, clerics can heal people, and wizards can't. You're completly wrong. Straight up.

 

In 4e, you can normally only heal one surge in battle without the help of a Leader, like a Cleric, or Warlord. After battle, you don't need them, but the post-battle heal-up was always a waste of spell slots, or a matter of wands being used. In battle, where it counts, it's a Leader- notably clercs, who get people back on their feet and keep them fighting.

 

Clerics are still well and truly healers- and wizards are not. Clerics are not the only healers in the game, but they're the best straight healers by far. For instance, they're one of the few healers who have a lot of healing powers apart from their basic healing word. They often give people bonus hit points healed on top of their surge value, for instance.

 

What 4e did was make them fun in other ways, and give people other ways to heal. This made classes like Warlords viable, and if you turn up your nose at warlords, then I pity you because they're awesome and they fit perfectly into the DnD style of game- assuming your group is not stagnant and dogmatic enough to reject anything simply because it's new.

 

Nor was there any duplicated functionality, since wizards in 4e are solidly in the Controller role, with zones, offensive blasts, and a lot of horsepower- maybe too much.

 

OTOH, clerics are leaders who's powers tend to focus on that, and while later classes were a bit more coherent in that role, it's still a very different class.

 

PE could do well to look at 4e to see how classes can relate to different roles in combat. Without considering such roles, you'll end up like 3e, and 5e- a few showy, powerful classes, and a lot of trash that doesn't get to do much.

Edited October 8, 2012 by happyelf

[Monte Carlo]

LOL.

 

What 4e did was make them fun in other ways, and give people other ways to heal. This made classes like Warlords viable, and if you turn up your nose at warlords, then I pity you because they're awesome and they fit perfectly into the DnD style of game- assuming your group is not stagnant and dogmatic enough to reject anything simply because it's new.

 

And this isn't a dogmatic statement, Herr Gaming Kommissar?