Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Imaro" data-source="post: 5460215" data-attributes="member: 48965">Wow, step away rom this thread for a few hours and it'll get away from you...<img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />&nbsp;I don't think anywhere that I said the earlier editions didn't have a focus at all, however I disagree that earlier editions were as focused on a particular style of play (and as exclusionary to others) in both tone and mechanics as 4e... especially with the B/X transition to BECMI and the supplements for AD&amp;D 1st edition are taken into account. You cannot at this point in time with the multitude of sourcebooks and Dragon/Dungeon for 4e in all fairness regulate comparisons to corebooks only. In those previous editions, there are rules and/or advice for everything from hiring laborers and henchmen to constructing strongholds, traveling to other dimensions (even other game systems), owning land, non-combat monsters, morale, etc. much of which (even this far into it's life cycle and with so much supplemental material published) 4e either lacks officially or leaves up in the air for the DM to create. YMMV of course.&nbsp;SIDE NOTE: [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]: I'm not arguing that previous editions included every possible playstyle... but that they were more accomodating and open to a wider variety. I mean i I'm not mistaken (and I may very well be) things such as time travel and dimensional travel to other worlds were at least mentioned and given rules/advice for in AD&amp;D. Also the setting (Planescape) was based on the premise that the very multiverse could be shaped with belief. Not exactly hero-questing (and probably not the best implementation but still a good first try IMO) but still the earlier editons seem to, IMO, have a much wider, wilder and encompasing blanket than what is currently offered.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Imaro, post: 5460215, member: 48965"] Wow, step away rom this thread for a few hours and it'll get away from you...;) I don't think anywhere that I said the earlier editions didn't have a focus at all, however I disagree that earlier editions were as focused on a particular style of play (and as exclusionary to others) in both tone and mechanics as 4e... especially with the B/X transition to BECMI and the supplements for AD&D 1st edition are taken into account. You cannot at this point in time with the multitude of sourcebooks and Dragon/Dungeon for 4e in all fairness regulate comparisons to corebooks only. In those previous editions, there are rules and/or advice for everything from hiring laborers and henchmen to constructing strongholds, traveling to other dimensions (even other game systems), owning land, non-combat monsters, morale, etc. much of which (even this far into it's life cycle and with so much supplemental material published) 4e either lacks officially or leaves up in the air for the DM to create. YMMV of course. SIDE NOTE: [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]: I'm not arguing that previous editions included every possible playstyle... but that they were more accomodating and open to a wider variety. I mean i I'm not mistaken (and I may very well be) things such as time travel and dimensional travel to other worlds were at least mentioned and given rules/advice for in AD&D. Also the setting (Planescape) was based on the premise that the very multiverse could be shaped with belief. Not exactly hero-questing (and probably not the best implementation but still a good first try IMO) but still the earlier editons seem to, IMO, have a much wider, wilder and encompasing blanket than what is currently offered. [/QUOTE]

Verification