Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 6075190" data-attributes="member: 87792">Oddly enough I strongly disagree. oD&D was predicated on a certain style even more tightly than 4e was.  This got drifted into a mishmash but with things like Vancian magic hardcoded in and the need for magical healing was never as versatile as e.g. GURPS.  Or (to cite modern games) the One Roll Engine, Cortex+ or Apocalypse World engines.Both games are indeed incoherent.  It is a strength in both cases.  4e's just a lot more narrative than 3e.  As for preferring it to a game that does narrativist play, it depends what purpose you want.Likewise 3e.  I happen to find one of the 3e assumptions required for a good game absolutely crippling.  That you're meant to not actually try what the game encourages and rewards.  Likewise.  4e was released a year early and with some pretty poor guidance. I have never had objections to people who dislike 4e with valid reasons - and there are plenty of valid reasons.  It does action fantasy well but that isn't to everyone's tastes.</blockquote>