Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mustrum_Ridcully" data-source="post: 4001810" data-attributes="member: 710">That's definitely true. 3e aimed at creating an integrated system consisting of multiple sub-systems that work closely together. It used the general concepts of earlier D&amp;D editions (like 9 levels of spells), but decided to structure them in a different manner, so that it's one tight package. This &quot;tightness&quot; and restructuring meant giving up a lot of flexibility and compatibility. For my part, I generally preferred the 3e approach, and welcome it with 4e, too. In case of 3e, previous editions didn't really matter to me - i started play with 3e, and didn't have any material for it I wanted to continue using. But judging from my reaction to the &quot;no conversion rules&quot; announcement to 4e), it probably wouldn't have mattered to me even if I was an AD&amp;D &quot;user&quot;. I am far more interested in a game system on its own. But I can see why compatibility is an issue if you have invested a lot of money and time in your game and see most of the material rendered useless with a new edition. Still, there are a few areas in which more flexibility in deviating from the core assumptions would have been nice. (Most notably for me, this was the &quot;wealth per level&quot; dependency in 3.x, but less strict rules for monster and NPC design would also be of great help, especially for a DM that has to come up with a good adventure idea, flesh it out and then build the NPCs &amp; monsters for it).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mustrum_Ridcully, post: 4001810, member: 710"] That's definitely true. 3e aimed at creating an integrated system consisting of multiple sub-systems that work closely together. It used the general concepts of earlier D&D editions (like 9 levels of spells), but decided to structure them in a different manner, so that it's one tight package. This "tightness" and restructuring meant giving up a lot of flexibility and compatibility. For my part, I generally preferred the 3e approach, and welcome it with 4e, too. In case of 3e, previous editions didn't really matter to me - i started play with 3e, and didn't have any material for it I wanted to continue using. But judging from my reaction to the "no conversion rules" announcement to 4e), it probably wouldn't have mattered to me even if I was an AD&D "user". I am far more interested in a game system on its own. But I can see why compatibility is an issue if you have invested a lot of money and time in your game and see most of the material rendered useless with a new edition. Still, there are a few areas in which more flexibility in deviating from the core assumptions would have been nice. (Most notably for me, this was the "wealth per level" dependency in 3.x, but less strict rules for monster and NPC design would also be of great help, especially for a DM that has to come up with a good adventure idea, flesh it out and then build the NPCs & monsters for it). [/QUOTE]

Verification