Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mercurius" data-source="post: 4284524" data-attributes="member: 59082">I may be wrong, but it seems to me that most critiques of 4e are related to its style, not its substance. That is, the look and feel of it, not the actual game mechanics and playability.I suppose it is too early to really critique the substance, as few have really had a chance to play it in depth, but we can get a sense from just reading the rules, from getting a sense of how they work, and getting our first taste of actual play.The reason I ask is that, not having the books (yet) I haven' been able to really sit down with the rules and get a feel for them. But what I see so far I like: it seems to be the most playable, flexible, and stream-lined version of D&amp;D yet. I don't really resonate with the Eberron-meets-World of Warcraft style of it; I don't like Dragonborn and Tieflings, or not having the option for &quot;0-level&quot; players, but overall it seems like a(nother) evolution in the game system itself. Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that I'm an old-timer, that is I started gaming before the &quot;second wave&quot; of RPGs (White Wolf, etc) came out in the early 90s, and well before the &quot;third wave&quot; in the late 90s/early 2000s, which reflected a younger, video-game-playing, generation. Heck, I remember when TSR hardcovers jumped up to $12.95 (I think it was about the same time comics went from 65 cents to 75).What I'm most concerned with is that the game itself is sound, and that there are plenty of options to choose from. I can, we all can, put our own style to it. So I ask those that don't like the game: Is it the style or substance? If it is the former, can you not flavor the system itself with your own style? Or are the two--substance and style--to interwoven to disentangle?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mercurius, post: 4284524, member: 59082"] I may be wrong, but it seems to me that most critiques of 4e are related to its style, not its substance. That is, the look and feel of it, not the actual game mechanics and playability. I suppose it is too early to really critique the substance, as few have really had a chance to play it in depth, but we can get a sense from just reading the rules, from getting a sense of how they work, and getting our first taste of actual play. The reason I ask is that, not having the books (yet) I haven' been able to really sit down with the rules and get a feel for them. But what I see so far I like: it seems to be the most playable, flexible, and stream-lined version of D&D yet. I don't really resonate with the Eberron-meets-World of Warcraft style of it; I don't like Dragonborn and Tieflings, or not having the option for "0-level" players, but overall it seems like a(nother) evolution in the game system itself. Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that I'm an old-timer, that is I started gaming before the "second wave" of RPGs (White Wolf, etc) came out in the early 90s, and well before the "third wave" in the late 90s/early 2000s, which reflected a younger, video-game-playing, generation. Heck, I remember when TSR hardcovers jumped up to $12.95 (I think it was about the same time comics went from 65 cents to 75). What I'm most concerned with is that the game itself is sound, and that there are plenty of options to choose from. I can, we all can, put our own style to it. So I ask those that don't like the game: Is it the style or substance? If it is the former, can you not flavor the system itself with your own style? Or are the two--substance and style--to interwoven to disentangle? [/QUOTE]

Verification