Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Rystil Arden" data-source="post: 3814414" data-attributes="member: 29014">I like to wing it too.&nbsp; My ability to do so well (which includes many subabilities including the ability to make usable high level NPCs in my head as needed) is my main GMing strength.&nbsp; Interestingly, that means that I'm best off using a system that is harder to wing but makes gains in other areas by sacrificing being super-easy to wing because I'm good enough at winging that I can do it anyway and then the system helps fill in for me where I'm not as strong.&nbsp; In that sense, 3e is a very good system for me.&nbsp; A system that makes winging it very easy for anyone and causes sacrifices that make my life harder in areas where I'm already weak (like the inverse of winging it, which includes set prep, props, being super-organised, etc) or taking away customisation will dilute my strength while emphasising my weaknesses.&nbsp; In that sense, to give a good example, the way that 4e seems to be going with monsters is &quot;We have this range of numbers that we think is right for a certain monster archetype, like Brute.&nbsp; Every Brute of that CR will be in that range in all of its attributes.&nbsp; There, we've done the monster design for you for any monster.&quot;&nbsp; As far as allowing winging to be easy and reducing prep, that would actually be great!&nbsp; But I don't need that to reduce my prep, so I feel like I'm losing something huge from what I had in 3e because I loved the 3.X monster design process and how all the moving parts worked together like some sort of marvelous Rube-Goldberg machine, and you just don't have that anymore in 4e because of the way they streamlined it--you just have a finished monster with numbers from their ranges.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Rystil Arden, post: 3814414, member: 29014"] I like to wing it too. My ability to do so well (which includes many subabilities including the ability to make usable high level NPCs in my head as needed) is my main GMing strength. Interestingly, that means that I'm best off using a system that is harder to wing but makes gains in other areas by sacrificing being super-easy to wing because I'm good enough at winging that I can do it anyway and then the system helps fill in for me where I'm not as strong. In that sense, 3e is a very good system for me. A system that makes winging it very easy for anyone and causes sacrifices that make my life harder in areas where I'm already weak (like the inverse of winging it, which includes set prep, props, being super-organised, etc) or taking away customisation will dilute my strength while emphasising my weaknesses. In that sense, to give a good example, the way that 4e seems to be going with monsters is "We have this range of numbers that we think is right for a certain monster archetype, like Brute. Every Brute of that CR will be in that range in all of its attributes. There, we've done the monster design for you for any monster." As far as allowing winging to be easy and reducing prep, that would actually be great! But I don't need that to reduce my prep, so I feel like I'm losing something huge from what I had in 3e because I loved the 3.X monster design process and how all the moving parts worked together like some sort of marvelous Rube-Goldberg machine, and you just don't have that anymore in 4e because of the way they streamlined it--you just have a finished monster with numbers from their ranges. [/QUOTE]

Verification