Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mallus" data-source="post: 4823300" data-attributes="member: 3887">Hey, that's something we have in common <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />.Oh sure. It's the source of some of my dissatisfaction with 3e. 3e lets you model a a great deal, but thanks to the 'language of the system', some models work a lot better than others, and therefore begin to dictate play because of that increased utility.ie. 3e doesn't just allow you a make a melee fighter that's good at tripping an opponent, it incentivizes making a melee fighter that does little else. It's a tricky problem. Either the system is more abstract, where 'what you imagine' has little to no mechanical representation (ie 1e combat), or it's more detailed, but those detailed rules begin to inform action choices more than the particulars of the in-game world (ie, both 3e and 4e combat -- but hey, at least 4e combat makes terrain more important!).</blockquote>