+ Log in or register to post
Results 921 to 929 of 929
Friday, 31st August, 2012, 02:51 PM #921
Cutpurse (Lvl 5)
- EN World
- has no influence
- on adverts that
- are displayed by
- Google Adsense
Friday, 31st August, 2012, 02:54 PM #922
4E has given me some great adventures, and I'm sure 4E and its spiritual successors will long into the future. WotC never pushed 4E to its full potential and if it's dropping the mantle there are plenty willing to pick it up.
Friday, 31st August, 2012, 03:02 PM #923
Cutpurse (Lvl 5)
OD&D and ND&D.
Friday, 31st August, 2012, 03:24 PM #924
Meh, I honestly don't care. 5E is going to be more balanced than 3E, but I'm not sure it's even going to meet the standards of being "better." And it's certainly not particularly paying attention to what the 4E players want. The shoddy tactics module was pretty much the last nail in the coffin for me (Facing? Really WotC? FACING?!?).
Frankly, we can do it better than WotC, and I'm fine with waving goodbye to them if they throw out everything they learned from 4E. And Facing is the OPPOSITE of everything that 4E ever did.
P.S. There were some good 4E adventures, but on the whole they're found in Dungeon Magazine. For some reason what made it to print was terrible.
Friday, 31st August, 2012, 03:45 PM #925
Cutpurse (Lvl 5)
Saturday, 1st September, 2012, 04:32 AM #926
Spellbinder (Lvl 16)
Anecdotally: before 4e was announced, I was playing a streamlined 3e game. I basically cut way down on the breadth of stuff we were using (ex: no 7-class MC craziness) and on the DM side I just had appropriate stats and abilities for monsters, without sweating how their feats and such lined up.
I was having a lot of fun with it, then 4e premiered and it was almost the same game. It was like "Whoa, what a natural progression, just removing the bookkeeping cruft I was tired of".
It's easy to draw the path from A to B, and it's easy to get bothered by any number of the detours or pit stops.
If I had a chance to redesign any edition of D&D, I'd change a lot of things. Less fiddly bits in 4e, less encyclopedic nonsense in 3e, more mechanical streamlining in 2e, more mechanical sensibility in BD&D, etc, etc. I'm sure it would have a lot of similarities to what other folks would design, and a lot of differences. And at its core still stem from the same stuff.
So, y'know, feel free to grok the whole thing, or not claim to.
Saturday, 1st September, 2012, 07:04 AM #927
So I don't see any natural progression really between "classic" TSR D&D or either of 3e or 4e.
I agree the progression between versions is more about individuals' journeys, and not so much about the game internals.
Saturday, 1st September, 2012, 07:26 AM #928
Saturday, 1st September, 2012, 09:04 AM #929
Orcus on an Off-Day (Lvl 22)
I certainly see a clear progression within classic D&D. A very slow, almost stately progression, I guess you could say. 1e started in 1977, and 2e didn't start until 1989, and was /barely/ different, at first. A lot of years with not a lot of change. Half way through 2e I gave up on it. It just wasn't providing anything of value. I missed out on the 'option' series, and, so I've heard, there were hints at what 3e would go on to do in there. But, I missed them, so to me 3e seemed fairly radical, and a definite improvement.
This millennium, D&D has moved a lot faster. 3.0 to 3.5 to 4e to Essentials in 10 years. 3.5, at 5 years, had the longest run, and it was never stagnant, new spells, feats, PrCs, and so forth were constantly coming out, and changes were made to basic rules and structure here and there, like the introduction of re-training late in the run, for instance. 4e may seem like a radical change from 3e, but given the pace of change within 3e, itself, it really wasn't. Both are merely the modern face of D&D.