Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jasperak" data-source="post: 5664020" data-attributes="member: 2487">I read the OP's question as pertaining to 4e's goals as a game and how the designers built those rules for a specific style of play.Since Mearl's dials of complexity don't seem to deal with throwing out healing surges, throwing out treasure parcels, throwing out the balance idea of every character being able to contribute meaningfully and somewhat equally in combat, or throwing out the idea of relatively strict monster scaling, I cannot see how it would be possible to use the 4e design framework to make a game that emulates the style of prior editions. Nor do I think it should. I don't particularly care for 4e but from my little bit of experience with it, it seemed a solid game for what it is designed to do. It did fix some of the problems of 3.5--a game I actually hate--but the manner in which it fixed them, made the game unrecognizable to me.I try to stay away from this forum because I would rarely have anything meaningful to add for a game I don't play. I hope that if I am right and the 4e framework cannot make a game to cater to all types of players, then I hope they don't waste time or resources screwing your game up. Seriously, if WOTC want's to get my business, make a game I will buy and play, but don't ruin a game that already has a sizable base.If they can make the holy grail of fantasy RPGs I'll take a look, but I would rather POD of all the books for earlier editions that I don't have. Maybe it would be better to make different games for the different styles and let the market place sort it out. Aside from the lethality of Castle Ravenloft, I had a good time playing and cannot wait for my friend to get Wrath.</blockquote>

Verification