Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Sunseeker" data-source="post: 6282578">Some general thoughts:I think there's a lot of &quot;I don't like&nbsp; what 4e did with [thing]&quot; because it was the latest edition.&nbsp; It's&nbsp; freshest in people's minds in both good ways and bad ways.&nbsp; I'm fairly&nbsp; certain I had several conversations with 3e'rs back before 4th launched&nbsp; about the things they didn't like in 3rd and hoped 4th would&nbsp; revert/improve.Anyone who will take the time to stop and think about any&nbsp; edition will realize that there are flaws.&nbsp; Personally, I don't give a&nbsp; doop about a LOT of the fluff, and this is why I advocate DDN should&nbsp; delineate fluff and crunch, and why I dislike spells written in prose.&nbsp; I&nbsp; want to know what it does, how it does it, and what I need to know to&nbsp; apply it.&nbsp; Afterwards I can find out who invented it, what it looks like and how it smells.&nbsp; For things that go beyond the physical, such as why one got turned into a Drider, or what&nbsp; alignment something is, I really just don't care.&nbsp; I don't run&nbsp; pre-written material and if I do, I just wave my hand and say &quot;It's that&nbsp; way because they wrote it that way.&quot;&nbsp; When it comes to my games, things&nbsp; are evil, chaotic, curses or blessings because that's the way I wrote&nbsp; them.&nbsp; Orcs pig-nosed or butt-ugly doesn't really matter to me.&nbsp; The player orc looks like how he wants it to look within the game at the table.&nbsp;&nbsp; And that's all that really matters, how the table is portraying the&nbsp; issue.&nbsp; I'd be more than happy if WOTC just put the fluff in a sidebar&nbsp; and didn't muddy up the crunch with it.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Sunseeker, post: 6282578"] Some general thoughts: I think there's a lot of "I don't like what 4e did with [thing]" because it was the latest edition. It's freshest in people's minds in both good ways and bad ways. I'm fairly certain I had several conversations with 3e'rs back before 4th launched about the things they didn't like in 3rd and hoped 4th would revert/improve. Anyone who will take the time to stop and think about [I]any[/I] edition will realize that there are flaws. Personally, I don't give a doop about a LOT of the fluff, and this is why I advocate DDN should delineate fluff and crunch, and why I dislike spells written in prose. I want to know what it does, how it does it, and what I need to know to apply it. [I]Afterwards[/I] I can find out who invented it, what it looks like and how it smells. For things that go beyond the physical, such as [I]why[/I] one got turned into a Drider, or what alignment something is, I really just don't care. I don't run pre-written material and if I do, I just wave my hand and say "It's that way because they wrote it that way." When it comes to my games, things are evil, chaotic, curses or blessings because that's the way I wrote them. Orcs pig-nosed or butt-ugly doesn't really matter to me. The player orc looks like how he wants it to look within the game [B]at the table[/B]. And that's all that really matters, how the table is portraying the issue. I'd be more than happy if WOTC just put the fluff in a sidebar and didn't muddy up the crunch with it. [/QUOTE]

Verification