NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6324378" data-attributes="member: 42582">I started playing D&D in 1982 with B/X. I moved to AD&D in 1984. It was pretty obvious to me from the get-go that AD&D was not simulationinst. When someone showed me Rolemaster in 1990, I went out and bought a set straight away, and that was the system I spent most of my time GMing for the next 19 years.3E was never appealing to me, because I saw it (and still see it) as an unstable mix of non-sim gonzo (attack and damage rules, the rules for initiative and action economy, a lot of the magic-use) and semi-sim gritty (the saving throw rules, the skill rules). I've always been puzzled by those who defend it on simulationist grounds, and my default assumption tends to be that those players are just not familiar with RM, HARP, RuneQuest and the other traditional simulationist fantasy RPGs that are out there.4e, on the other hand, is appealing to me precisely because it takes all the features of AD&D and B/X that avoid sim to make gonzo possible (eg saving throws, hit points, abstract positioning and action economy) but rebuilds them from the ground up to make an excellent, non-sim, heroic fantasy RPG.I'm not sure this is true for AD&D or B/X fighters. There isn't really optimisation of a fighter. (For MUs, of course, optimisation = spell selection and this generally does trump magic items. Though sensible use of scrolls and wands is also an important part of MU play.)</blockquote>

Verification