Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 5978884" data-attributes="member: 82106">Oh, it isn't necessarily in opposition to what you said. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> Just something I rarely see articulated clearly. I think at the most fundamental level it is transparency that makes something like 4e attractive to me.I don't have a huge problem with the little nugget of DDN we've seen so far. It DOES seem a little less transparent, maybe, but then again maybe not. Can't tell. Actually I thought that in general improvements I'd have recommended for a 4e follow-on are there. A bunch of cruft was removed from combat. What's left is pretty close to a good system for playing with minis, given straightforward reasonable minor extrapolations. We played a couple sessions of the playtest with a grid and minis, which worked reasonably well. Frankly I'd want to see better formatted and spelled out powers and monsters. Frankly I have no particular interest in this whole &quot;every class must have different mechanics&quot; thing, as I've said. Nobody pays a whole lot of attention to mechanics around our table. If you're not 100% engaged by the action in the game something is wrong, there should be and is no time for nitpicking the rules or even thinking about them! Simple, transparent, easy to learn, easy to remember, easy to write down on your sheet, and easy to resolve. Basically I could care less if it is different from AD&amp;D. WotC is great, but the fan base I'm having deep issues with right now. Most of them I'd be happy to just see get off this bus. Their fascination with 20 years dead fossil D&amp;D minutia to the exclusion of all else is bizarre and foreign to me and doesn't even come close to relating to my own experiences with my own group. I play with people that I played with when D&amp;D was 3 little books, we're just not lost in nostalgia for our early teens or looking to reproduce that experience exactly.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="AbdulAlhazred, post: 5978884, member: 82106"] Oh, it isn't necessarily in opposition to what you said. ;) Just something I rarely see articulated clearly. I think at the most fundamental level it is transparency that makes something like 4e attractive to me. I don't have a huge problem with the little nugget of DDN we've seen so far. It DOES seem a little less transparent, maybe, but then again maybe not. Can't tell. Actually I thought that in general improvements I'd have recommended for a 4e follow-on are there. A bunch of cruft was removed from combat. What's left is pretty close to a good system for playing with minis, given straightforward reasonable minor extrapolations. We played a couple sessions of the playtest with a grid and minis, which worked reasonably well. Frankly I'd want to see better formatted and spelled out powers and monsters. Frankly I have no particular interest in this whole "every class must have different mechanics" thing, as I've said. Nobody pays a whole lot of attention to mechanics around our table. If you're not 100% engaged by the action in the game something is wrong, there should be and is no time for nitpicking the rules or even thinking about them! Simple, transparent, easy to learn, easy to remember, easy to write down on your sheet, and easy to resolve. Basically I could care less if it is different from AD&D. WotC is great, but the fan base I'm having deep issues with right now. Most of them I'd be happy to just see get off this bus. Their fascination with 20 years dead fossil D&D minutia to the exclusion of all else is bizarre and foreign to me and doesn't even come close to relating to my own experiences with my own group. I play with people that I played with when D&D was 3 little books, we're just not lost in nostalgia for our early teens or looking to reproduce that experience exactly. [/QUOTE]

Verification