NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Aenghus" data-source="post: 4088622" data-attributes="member: 2656">Ten years ago I probably would have hated 4e. Today I know I will have some issues with parts of the game but generally it looks like an improvement for my needs. Thing is the reasons for the hate would have been the flip-side of the streamlining that has taken place.I used to idealise the concept of a fully functioning and obsessively-detailed campaign world. But then I used to have a lot more free time, and have found out over the years that most of my players really don't care about this stuff, and time spent on it is often wasted.But from what we have seen of 4e, it explicitly comes out and states it doesn't support world-building as a primary concept independent of the PC party's needs. Anyone who prioritises this will have an issue with 4e. (Not that previous editions actually supported this idea properly, but they gave the impression they could).Another item, which was more an issue in 1e and 2e, was enforcing a "sense of wonder" by  rigorous DM information control. 3e moved away from this by having rules for everything, and making magic even more mechanical. The basic issue here is that like horror, "sense of wonder" cannot be enforced on the truly unwilling player. The reaction to this often involves the DM blaming the rules set for the problem, when the real issue is conflicting DM and PC goals.It does remain to be seen if 4e supports a "sense of wonder" style. Points of light and easily adaptable monsters helps compared to 3e. On the other hand it is possible that some players will feel PCs to be very mechanical and overdesigned, from comments I have seen. This is all very subjective, with the perception of the rules and setting being as important as what they actually say in black and white. Time will tell.</blockquote>

Verification