Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="GreyLord" data-source="post: 5359969" data-attributes="member: 4348">That wasn't because 3e was innovative, that was due to the OGL.  If you had that with 2e, you would have even MORE innovation...or even with 1e...oh wait...they didn't have it with 1e but the company was even MORE innmovative back then with the stuff they created and the myriads of different game systems.  Most of those game systems were typically NOT based on 3e per se either...but BREAKING the normal rules of 3e.  Furthermore, you saw the DEATH of RPG innovation during that time period...as more rulesets became D20...and there was less innovation on the whole for RPG's and different types of systems.Hence...I don't think you even have a point on this one.Yeah...in the past and in 4e we use something called...wait for it...wait for it...common sense.  WHAT...people LOST that during the 3e years?  Common sense can dictate...hey...why have 3 million rules I have to memorize when I can simply remember one...called an ability check...and it covers all those situations?  One rule vs memorize Fifty?  Which do you think creates more innovation...telling people that they have these materials to build a moving vehicle (the non-3e rules) OR giving someone a direct plan for HOW it should be made and then telling them to make the vehicle (In my experience...most will follow the plan instead of being innovative).Does it now?  You seem so stuck on trips and stunts that you are forgetting the ROLEPLAYING portion of ROLEPLAYING.  Furthermore...I've seen many "stunts" driven by players outside of their "powers" as you put it.  If you want to go that path...the "FEATS" of 3e did the same thing.  Why would a fighter not power attack, or cleave...or a Spellcaster use a metamagic feat?  In fact...just like 4e....they used the feats like powers...so that's something that can be equally applied to 3e.  What 4e DOESN'T say is that you have to do it this way outside of combat maneuvers.  4e is more minimalistic, and like the raw materials vs. the written out directions as given above...it gives players more incentive to ROLEPLAY situations rather than rely on having the specific skill or feat to do it.Now the key thing is that the DM has to be smart enough to realize about the roleplaying aspect...but the DMG covers that a LOT better in 4e then it ever did in 3e as well...so that's actually LESS of a problem.Don't get me wrong...I think 3e is a grand system...but players from it consistently seem to be handicapped in actual roleplaying ability from what I've seen thinking they have to stick to their skills and feats and nothing can operate outside of that.  In fact, it tends to make some rules lawyers as they argue about specifics...so they can become combat monsters.4e can have the same problems in combat...without a smart DM who realizes what the DMG is actually telling him about Roleplaying...But overall, 4e is kinder, happier, and more towards the older style of encouraging roleplaying with a looser set of rules...inspiring the possiblities for innovation far more than 3e. (which as I said, created a bunch of zombie clone D20 rules...which basically killed almost ALL RPG system innovation for a couple years.  OGL was great...and from it some great systems came out...but it was also terrible in other ways...such as the aforementioned actual innovation).Depending on what style of game I am wanting to run...I'll run 3.5 (leaning more towards a PF type now) or 4e game...both are good...but I don't think 3e or 3.5 actually inspired much innovation during it's reign as RPG champ.  I also think that 3e and 3.5 drew a DIFFERENT CROWD then the traditional D&D player...more along the lines of the Rolemaster lite, Gurps, and skill set players who typically preferred to try other systems outside of D&D.  4e appeals more to the type that would have played D&D in the past (IMO), but still isn't completely in their camp.  To many things which are too heavily focused (ex. combat) on with the lack of focus on other areas (ex. fluff) to be a complete winner...hence I think it's more a flux in the middle.That said, I still think Essentials is made to appeal MORE towards the old time gamer than the 3e and newer players.  As someone said in another thread...to paraphrase or steal their thoughts...a choice of a couple Hundred thousand 3e players...or 25 million lapsed AD&D players who don't play any RPG anymore...I think I'll see if I can get a slice of that bigger pie of 25 million.</blockquote>

Verification