Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="CharlesRyan" data-source="post: 4963443" data-attributes="member: 5265">Without getting in the historical context of exactly how complex 3E was at what point, I have to agree with you completely.I've been playing a lot of 4E (and running some, and even writing some), but my personal campaign is still OGL and I still draw a lot upon 3E materials. I was just going through a bunch of stat blocks last night, and I frankly can't believe how much more complicated prepping and running 3E is compared to 4E.Don't believe me? Go back and read any monster entry that has more than a couple special attacks. Especially magical or spell-like abilities that refer you back to a spell (and for which you have to parse the effects based on a caster level).In theory, maybe there's a mechanical elegance in being able to say &quot;this game ability is identical to this already-described game ability.&quot; (Maybe.) But in practice, it requires iterative look-ups in different books both during prep and at the gaming table. If that isn't complexity, what is?Even special attacks that don't require look-ups usually need a paragraph to describe them. In 4E, that would be a single sentence and a few numbers telling you how to implement.One could argue about the value of this complexity--certainly 3E leaves more room for GM interpretation and nuance--but not about whether the complexity is there.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="CharlesRyan, post: 4963443, member: 5265"] Without getting in the historical context of exactly how complex 3E was at what point, I have to agree with you completely. I've been playing a lot of 4E (and running some, and even writing some), but my personal campaign is still OGL and I still draw a lot upon 3E materials. I was just going through a bunch of stat blocks last night, and I frankly can't believe how much more complicated prepping and running 3E is compared to 4E. Don't believe me? Go back and read [I]any[/I] monster entry that has more than a couple special attacks. [I]Especially[/I] magical or spell-like abilities that refer you back to a spell (and for which you have to parse the effects based on a caster level). In theory, maybe there's a mechanical elegance in being able to say "this game ability is identical to this already-described game ability." (Maybe.) But in practice, it requires iterative look-ups in different books both during prep and at the gaming table. If that isn't complexity, what is? Even special attacks that don't require look-ups usually need a paragraph to describe them. In 4E, that would be a single sentence and a few numbers telling you how to implement. One could argue about the [I]value[/I] of this complexity--certainly 3E leaves more room for GM interpretation and nuance--but not about whether the complexity is there. [/QUOTE]

Verification