Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 4282531" data-attributes="member: 42582">Ah, I see what you mean. What's interesting about that is that, in fact, fireball in 3E is (in play) almost unrecognisable from fireball in 1st ed, because of the vastly different hit point and saving throw numbers in each game.I agree that 4e has not kept many of these tropes. But I think it's too early to know what effect, if any, the dropping of those tropes will have on actual play experience. Some people at least say that, to them, it plays more like AD&D than 3E did. I find this surprising, but not obviously absurd.Well, it's all about the interactions (and I think this is Imaro's point). Again, it's too early to judge exactly how complex those interactions are, but I think they might be fairly complex. This looks to me like clever game design: easy entry, but (if I am right about the complexity of the interactions) the game keeps giving no matter how hard you push it.Well, I don't see it this way. So, if I may mix some metaphors, generic food and otherwise: 3E was McDonalds. It gave me a whole lot of crap flavour with rules mechanics intended to reliably produce that flavour. 4e is a set of mechanical tools that allow me to narrate my own flavour, whatever that might be, over the top of them without having to be worried that the mechanical framework supporting my flavour will collapse.Roughly speaking, I think if you care more about the narrative content of the game then tweaking mechanical subsystems, 4e is likely to be a better game for you than 3E was. Of course it's early days, and I may be proved wrong. But at the moment I think the evidence provided by the design, and the playtest reports that we have had, is running my way.</blockquote>

Verification