Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Drammattex" data-source="post: 4086925" data-attributes="member: 55363">That's a good question, and I can certainly see both sides. As a player, the idea of limitless customization is exceptionally appealing. Even now, when I know it doesn't work as well as we'd like it to. But as a player, I could probably be happy with 3e for a long time. As a DM, 3e is a massive pain in the @$$ if you attempt to do it "by the book." And if you DON'T do it by the book, you have a table full of players holding up their PHBs, saying "Excuse me, Mr. DM, but in this case, a +x modifier applies, not a +y, as you have stated." While that's going to happen somewhat in every edition, it was the worst in 3e because 3e was the most rigidly defined. Rules for everything.My favorite example is the one where the PCs were up against the local town bullies (yeah, I'm a low-magic, so-called "gritty" DM). The bard wanted to Sound Burst the thugs she could see approaching beyond the window. I went into detail, describing how she uttered a piercing shriek which shattered the window and layed low the thugs on the outside in a shower of screeching shards of glass. That was when one of the other players stood up and noted that she couldn't do that because the window was a solid object, and although she had line of sight, she did not have line of effect. So we debated this, and I went through the book until I found the hardness and item saving throw for glass. We checked the sound burst damage against the hardness of the window and in the end... fifteen minutes later... she was able to hit the LEVEL 7 COMMONERS with her Sound Burst. All that for level 7 commoners who really didn't make a damn bit of difference in the first place. Anyway, take that example and apply it to dozens of other situations. I find most DMs (including myself) don't bother with the excess of crunch. We play things fast and loose and use the rules we need at the time. We don't waste time doing the math to advance minor monsters the PCs are going to kill in five rounds. The mechanics have (at very least) a strong hand on how the game is played. With a rules-heavy game like 3e, you're going to see the gears moving. With 1e and 2e, the structure seemed very loose... it sometimes seemed there weren't enough rules, so we just made stuff up. Sure, this led to disagreements ("I was at the other side of the room!"), but the story seemed a lot more flexible. I get the impression that 4e is putting storytelling power back into the DM's hands. The rules don't work to provide mechanics for simulation. If people want simulation, they should play A Game of Thrones. It's "realistic." On the other hand, you'll probably die if you try something cool. As for me, I'm going into 4e excited about the streamlined way the system works. I'm going to provide all the grit and gore and guts on my own. I'll probably adapt a "wounds" system, and the majority of PCs will be human martial classes. But if those are the only adjustments I have to make to the game, I'll be in 7th heaven. If the base system underlying those classes can help the game flow without all the piddling little snags from 3e, I'll be very happy. Yes, I think 4e is a system for DMs (and therefore, for players who will be the beneficieries of the DM's rediscovered freedom).</blockquote>

Verification