Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Imaro" data-source="post: 4418991" data-attributes="member: 48965">I'm going to have to disagree here... IMO, 4e is just as complex to run as 3e.  In 3e a monster might have been a little cluttered withe extraneous skills and powers that worked outside of combat (Personally I liked this, just feel it could have been organized better) but on average you ran less monsters at one time than in D&D 4e.  In D&D 4e my experience has been that the complexity comes from having to keep track of alot of small things on a continuous basis.  So I don't believe that 4e is actually less complicated than 3e when running an encounter.  Just as an anecdote, one of my players offered to run a game of 4e for the first time.  Now the only other game he's run an adventure in is Castles & Crusades (where he did great).  Just running the following encounter (2 kobold Dragonshields, 4 kobold minions, 2 kobold slingers) overwhelmed him noticeably, and turned him off running another game.This would have never happened if he had been running kobolds in 3e or Castles and Crusades.  Now granted, in these games, the monster abilities, etc. increase as level goes up... but it gives a new DM a chance to grow and get a reign on it before increasing the options, 4e doesn't do this so well and this, again IMO, makes it a way more complicated entry for aspiring DM's than 3e or CnC</blockquote>