Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 3817768" data-attributes="member: 42582">I don't entirely agree with this. You seem to be treating "mechanics" as equivalent to "action resolution mechanics" - but this equation does not hold. Character build is a huge part of the mechanical play experience of 3E, and its role will only be increased in 4e. And classes are huge parts of the character build rules. So for a GM to exclude a particular class is for that GM to make a significant change to the mechanics.I incline to agree with Fifth Element more than Imaro. 3E combined a marketing strategy with a particular type of play experience. The marketing strategy is one of sell books to players as well as GMs - this is very rewarding for WoTC. The play experience is one of very heavy emphasis on character build, and on action resolution mechanics that interface in a complex way with all aspects of the character build - this is rewarding for players.It is interesting to see that (from what has been released at 4e) the emphasis on character build is, if anything, becoming greater, and the action resolution mechanics are becoming more sophisticated (with rules for social and environmental challenges, every class having a mix of resources, etc). At the same time, the need for the GM to interact with those mechanics is being reduced (simplified monster build rules, monster abilities that don't requires referencing the PHB) and the default setting ("points of light") has the expressly-stated design goal of allowing GMs to run a game on the fly. Although this hasn't been mentioned, I would think it also makes co-GMing a lot easier (as the world is far less defined). Furthermore, some of the changes in the mechanics for action resolution (reduced contribution to PC power of per-day resources, SWSE-style skill bonuses ) will make it easier for commercial adventure writers to produce mechanically well-balanced scenarios that a GM can run with very little prep/rewriting time required.So 4e seems designed to reduce the burden of being a GM, which also reduces the extra work done by the GM compared to the players. This makes it easier for players to become GMs - which is good for the game - but it also reduces the GM's claim to be a "special participant" with a greater right to control at the table. So I would predict that, if anything, 4e will be more of a players' game than 3E is, and certainly more than AD&D ever was.</blockquote>

Verification