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="Imaro" data-source="post: 6075181" data-attributes="member: 48965">Yep, I agree with this... D&D was a "general" tool which could be, without too much effort, adapted for different playstyles.I agree again. I have noticed that often on these boards the claim of 3e being simulationist is often couched in extreme terms (by proponents of 4e) where it is an all or nothing thing... but if you refer back to your first point of adaptability, it wouldn't make sense if 3e or any edition of D&D was a pure simulationist game.  The thing i find fuinny is that 4e isn't purein a gamist, narrativist or simulationist sense either... I mean if you want any of these things there are better games out there for it than 4e, but it doesn't stop many of the fans of 4e from claiming that 4e is (for the most part) of a narrativist bent and preferring it to games that do narrativist play much better.I think the two sentences I emphasized are very telling.  Throughout all the marketing fans of earlier editions were told that the game was the same...  but now we can very clearly see that it is not, and that it in fact promotes and runs best under a specific playstyle and with pretty specific assumptions that weren't really layed out or explained well in the first 3 corebooks... and that also required even more money in the form of further books (DMG 2) and DDI (Skill challenge articles) to actually get right.  I mean we've got a multi-page thread on "pemertonian scene-framing" that only a few posters are actually posting and discussing in because it's like having to read a text book to change one's style in order to accomodate a game that before this edition ran fine under the style you enjoyed.  Add to this the fact that certain tools for certain playstyles were left out of the core... such as hirelings and henchmen and I could see how for many 4e just wasn't worth it.  I've honestly come around to realizing that 4e does actually support a type of game I enjoy running (protagonist enabled, four-colored & high-action adventure fanatsy), but it's not a type I run all the time and it's not even my favorite type of fantasy to run.  I also realize that with just a modicum of effort I was already able to play 3.0 & 3.5 (especially with OGL products), and many retro-clones in pretty much the same manner when I wanted to... so while I play 4e occasionally I don't think it was ever going to become my primary game... and I can sympathize with people who werent' willing to keep spending moneyt and effort to get what they wanted out of 4e.</blockquote>

Verification