Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="xechnao" data-source="post: 4648782" data-attributes="member: 58105">Classic D&D was not offending verismilitude. It just had limited options to suit what the game was all about.The game was strategic -not tactical- and was build like this:You have three types of units: one that could offer big solutions but had no resistance (wizard), one that could offer solutions of medium scope and had a bit more of resistance (mixed classes) and finally one with solutions of even smaller scope but higher resistance (fighter). There is also room for a fixer-patcher -one who fixes things using medium solutions and a bit of resistance (priest). It was a complete strategic game by offering objectives and consequences. 3e failed to this last part. Yet it provided a way to expand the fluff within the mechanics of the system. This seemed to beat the limits of the game and many see it as a direction towards simulationism.    4e limits things again because it inherently defines objectives and consequences by being a purely tactical game of miniatures (and it does offend verisimilitude in some aspects and cases). Yet it is a more complete design for a game than 3e was. But it is not hard for some people to see what the 4e game is about and to decide if they want to play this kind of game or not.</blockquote>