Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="evildm" data-source="post: 4275252" data-attributes="member: 3264">Kudos on a thought-out and well-reasoned response.In fact I agree with alot of your sentiment. There's alot of &quot;forced fluff&quot; so to speak to almost shoehorn the game into the PoL setting. I like that they moved away from Greyhawk, but I don't like that they moved into a less generic setting. On that same token, however, I think that had they not done this, the books would not be as inspiring as they are. When I say inspiring, I don't mean that they give me ideas for a PoL-like setting. Not at all. Instead, I feel less restricted by the system. As another poster put it, 3e pretty much had a rule for everything. This one seems to encourage DM fiat that much more, which makes me feel alot freer than I was feeling towards the end of 3e. That's the biggest attraction. I could move to AD&amp;D or C&amp;C or something. And in fact, towards the end of 3e's life-cycle, I was seriously considering it. But while my players enjoyed their foray into AD&amp;D to pay our respects to Gary Gygax, none seemed to want to make it a permanent thing. 3e, I think, was very much the players' game. It gave all kinds of cool new abilities to players and made characters more interesting to create and play (mechanically). Unfortunately, this seemed to greatly over-complicate things for the DM. I think this is what led to alot of DM's fatigue with 3e, it certainly led to mine. So, all this to say that I think it's good that 4e seems much lighter on the DM, while still giving the players what they want: cooler characters. Again, I totally agree with you on the fluff aspect of it, but I'm thankful that my players will be understanding enough when I tell them to basically disregard all of that and I replace it with my own (Eberron-appropriate) stuff. I think I blabbered on enough about that. Hope it made sense. <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=";)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="evildm, post: 4275252, member: 3264"] Kudos on a thought-out and well-reasoned response. In fact I agree with alot of your sentiment. There's alot of "forced fluff" so to speak to almost shoehorn the game into the PoL setting. I like that they moved away from Greyhawk, but I don't like that they moved into a less generic setting. On that same token, however, I think that had they not done this, the books would not be as inspiring as they are. When I say inspiring, I don't mean that they give me ideas for a PoL-like setting. Not at all. Instead, I feel less restricted by the system. As another poster put it, 3e pretty much had a rule for everything. This one seems to encourage DM fiat that much more, which makes me feel alot freer than I was feeling towards the end of 3e. That's the biggest attraction. I could move to AD&D or C&C or something. And in fact, towards the end of 3e's life-cycle, I was seriously considering it. But while my players enjoyed their foray into AD&D to pay our respects to Gary Gygax, none seemed to want to make it a permanent thing. 3e, I think, was very much the players' game. It gave all kinds of cool new abilities to players and made characters more interesting to create and play (mechanically). Unfortunately, this seemed to greatly over-complicate things for the DM. I think this is what led to alot of DM's fatigue with 3e, it certainly led to mine. So, all this to say that I think it's good that 4e seems much lighter on the DM, while still giving the players what they want: cooler characters. Again, I totally agree with you on the fluff aspect of it, but I'm thankful that my players will be understanding enough when I tell them to basically disregard all of that and I replace it with my own (Eberron-appropriate) stuff. I think I blabbered on enough about that. Hope it made sense. ;) [/QUOTE]

Verification