Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 9225075" data-attributes="member: 4937">That may be fair.&nbsp; I've been playing since 1e AD&amp;D and I'm record as saying that I loved 3e because it felt like someone had thought about all the problems my house rules were trying to solve and cleaned them up for me and built a clean unified system that was a natural extension of how I was already playing.&nbsp; I experienced a few problems translating my 1e game to 3e like gestalt multi-classed characters in AD&amp;D didn't translate into the new rules system well and there was some things I was doing with NPC classes from Dragon magazine that didn't translate into Commoner, Expert, Noble, Adept or Warrior but on the whole it was a very natural translation between the two and I kept playing exactly how I had played in 1e AD&amp;D - that &quot;3e rules, 1e feel&quot; thing.I saw Clerics as OP because the design of Clerics and Rogues in 3e to me reflected how those classes had been too limited and too underpowered in 1e and in the case of the Cleric they erred in the wrong direction by way of over-compensation.&nbsp; To me though, there were some fairly easy fixes that brought the Cleric back down to tier 2 and within an acceptable power range.&nbsp; Late 3.X totally turned me off, and I never really adopted 3.5 at all as by the time 3.5e came around I was already finding the problems in the system I wanted fixed and 3.5 wasn't moving in the same direction I was.&nbsp; But certainly, I could see where 4e was a natural extension of the design philosophies that were already creeping into 3.X by the end of its life cycle.&nbsp; However, unlike 3e being a natural evolution of how I played 1e, 4e was radically moving in the direction that I didn't play 3e.&nbsp; As best as I could tell, 4e was designed based almost entirely on feedback from the 3e Living campaigns and so was fixing the problems you'd have trying to run D&amp;D for a group of strangers where the primary aesthetic of play was tactical problem solving.&nbsp; And yeah, running a living campaign in late 3.5 without a ton of house rules would have been a horror show.&nbsp; 4e D&amp;D was almost fixated on the idea of a &quot;raid&quot; in MMORPG terms and maximizing that as it's central aesthetic of play.&nbsp; It was not at all concerned with demographics and rules as physics and internal consistency of the fiction and anything I was interested in coming from a rules set.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 9225075, member: 4937"] That may be fair. I've been playing since 1e AD&D and I'm record as saying that I loved 3e because it felt like someone had thought about all the problems my house rules were trying to solve and cleaned them up for me and built a clean unified system that was a natural extension of how I was already playing. I experienced a few problems translating my 1e game to 3e like gestalt multi-classed characters in AD&D didn't translate into the new rules system well and there was some things I was doing with NPC classes from Dragon magazine that didn't translate into Commoner, Expert, Noble, Adept or Warrior but on the whole it was a very natural translation between the two and I kept playing exactly how I had played in 1e AD&D - that "3e rules, 1e feel" thing. I saw Clerics as OP because the design of Clerics and Rogues in 3e to me reflected how those classes had been too limited and too underpowered in 1e and in the case of the Cleric they erred in the wrong direction by way of over-compensation. To me though, there were some fairly easy fixes that brought the Cleric back down to tier 2 and within an acceptable power range. Late 3.X totally turned me off, and I never really adopted 3.5 at all as by the time 3.5e came around I was already finding the problems in the system I wanted fixed and 3.5 wasn't moving in the same direction I was. But certainly, I could see where 4e was a natural extension of the design philosophies that were already creeping into 3.X by the end of its life cycle. However, unlike 3e being a natural evolution of how I played 1e, 4e was radically moving in the direction that I didn't play 3e. As best as I could tell, 4e was designed based almost entirely on feedback from the 3e Living campaigns and so was fixing the problems you'd have trying to run D&D for a group of strangers where the primary aesthetic of play was tactical problem solving. And yeah, running a living campaign in late 3.5 without a ton of house rules would have been a horror show. 4e D&D was almost fixated on the idea of a "raid" in MMORPG terms and maximizing that as it's central aesthetic of play. It was not at all concerned with demographics and rules as physics and internal consistency of the fiction and anything I was interested in coming from a rules set. [/QUOTE]

Verification