Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Obryn" data-source="post: 6286299" data-attributes="member: 11821">Of course there's other stuff than adventuring (that is, exploring dangerous "dungeons" and fighting deadly "dragons"), but adventuring should be the focus of the rules. If the rules around adventuring take away from adventuring, I don't know why I'm playing D&D anymore instead of a game which does that other stuff much better.I'm not in the market for "generic fantasy RPG." I'm in the market for D&D, which should deliver on the Dungeons and the Dragons.I think you are misconstruing where I'm coming from. I love RC D&D and AD&D 1e. I think they're excellent games, and great at the "Exploring Dungeons" parts of the game. They do what they do very well, and I enjoy playing them.But I'm not coming at this merely out of tradition. Earlier editions are lacking when it comes to the "Fighting Dragons" parts of the game. 3.x is particularly bad here because it so easily degenerates into spell-rocket tag.Detail and granularity are helpful for the cinematic combat that's essential for cinematic fights - the sorts of exciting conflicts that I always wanted out of D&D but which it never delivered. As I said upthread, I think 4e's approach finally fulfilled a lot of what D&D (and D&D-like media) had been promising for 40 years.</blockquote>