Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Guest&nbsp; 85555" data-source="post: 5145710">I personally think there is merit to both the 4e (highly balanced approach) and the 3e (power disparity approach). I also think the key to running any 3e game is the GM. Once builds and splat books became the norm, it took me about a month as a GM to figure out how to reign in the excesses. I noticed was players basically fell into two camps--those who really liked the options and the disparity of power in 3e (which to them was really just about making their choices have an impact on the game in most cases), and those who couldn't stand that about 3e. I could be wrong, but it looks like the later are basically the ones who play 4e now and the former are the ones who continue to play d20 or pathfinder. Honestly I think this is good for the hobby. Toward the end of 3e, everything was d20. There wasn't anything new or fresh (or at least, it didn't seem like there was a whole lot of non-d20 stuff coming out). But now it feels like there is new spark in gaming. In  a way, I am glad everyone (at least i the groups I play with in my area), didn't make the 4e shift (a lot of them did, though). Now my options are open. If I want to play 4e, I know of about 4 groups in my area that are playing. If I want to play d20, I know of a bunch of groups for that as well. But I also noticed that there are more alternatives out there as well. There are groups playing games like Savage Worlds.</blockquote>