Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Argyle King" data-source="post: 6194351" data-attributes="member: 58416">It may just be that we have different expectations for what those terms mean to us.For me, I find 4th Edition in particular to be great for a style of fantasy which is pretty over the top; &quot;mythic fantasy&quot; if you will.&nbsp; I've also said in the past that I feel 4E would be a really good frame to build a supers game around.Even though I view some aspects of 3rd being more grounded, I'd still find some of the basic ideas behind D&amp;D (such as level, HP, magic items being all over the place, and etc) to be opposed to what I'd want out of a more 'gritty' experience.&nbsp; In the case of 3rd, I'd also argue that it tries to do both styles at the same time, but ends up contradicting itself too much to do either really all that well.&nbsp; That's not to say I feel it's a poor game.&nbsp; If it wasn't for 3rd, I'd have probably never played D&amp;D.&nbsp; That being said, I don't think it's ever something I could go back to after seeing what is available from other systems.&nbsp; For me, if I want gritty, I can break out my GURPS books and have all of the flexibility of D&amp;D 3rd (and Pathfinder) without any of the problems I have with 3rd or things like the d20 or D&amp;D style HP.&nbsp; As a bonus, since it's a toolkit game, I can still do all those other things (supers, mythic fantasy, sci-fi) too if I'd really like to.&nbsp; For all of the faults I find with 4th (and there are many,) one thing I can't fault the game for is for having what I feel is a more coherent mechanical vision.&nbsp; I might not always like that vision, and I might even believe it's vision from a mechanical stance contradicts the fluff of the game, but it has one.&nbsp; After spending time with it, it's pretty clear what to expect from playing the game.&nbsp; I think one of the most ironic things about D&amp;D to me is that it is influenced by Tolkien, yet I can't imagine myself ever using D&amp;D to try to run something similar to Lord of The Rings and feeling satisfied with the outcome.&nbsp; Likewise, it seems to me that R. Howard had some amount of influence on the game, and I don't think I could ever see myself running something in the world of either Conan or Kull with the stock D&amp;D rules.&nbsp; Other people might, and I in no way disparage their ability or desire to do so.&nbsp; All I can say is that I don't believe it would work for me well enough to feel satisfied with the results.&nbsp; I think D&amp;D has evolved into something that is a genre of its own, and there are a lot of D&amp;Disms which don't make sense anywhere outside of the context of D&amp;D.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Argyle King, post: 6194351, member: 58416"] It may just be that we have different expectations for what those terms mean to us. For me, I find 4th Edition in particular to be great for a style of fantasy which is pretty over the top; "mythic fantasy" if you will. I've also said in the past that I feel 4E would be a really good frame to build a supers game around. Even though I view some aspects of 3rd being more grounded, I'd still find some of the basic ideas behind D&D (such as level, HP, magic items being all over the place, and etc) to be opposed to what I'd want out of a more 'gritty' experience. In the case of 3rd, I'd also argue that it tries to do both styles at the same time, but ends up contradicting itself too much to do either really all that well. That's not to say I feel it's a poor game. If it wasn't for 3rd, I'd have probably never played D&D. That being said, I don't think it's ever something I could go back to after seeing what is available from other systems. For me, if I want gritty, I can break out my GURPS books and have all of the flexibility of D&D 3rd (and Pathfinder) without any of the problems I have with 3rd or things like the d20 or D&D style HP. As a bonus, since it's a toolkit game, I can still do all those other things (supers, mythic fantasy, sci-fi) too if I'd really like to. For all of the faults I find with 4th (and there are many,) one thing I can't fault the game for is for having what I feel is a more coherent mechanical vision. I might not always like that vision, and I might even believe it's vision from a mechanical stance contradicts the fluff of the game, but it has one. After spending time with it, it's pretty clear what to expect from playing the game. I think one of the most ironic things about D&D to me is that it is influenced by Tolkien, yet I can't imagine myself ever using D&D to try to run something similar to Lord of The Rings and feeling satisfied with the outcome. Likewise, it seems to me that R. Howard had some amount of influence on the game, and I don't think I could ever see myself running something in the world of either Conan or Kull with the stock D&D rules. Other people might, and I in no way disparage their ability or desire to do so. All I can say is that I don't believe it would work for me well enough to feel satisfied with the results. I think D&D has evolved into something that is a genre of its own, and there are a lot of D&Disms which don't make sense anywhere outside of the context of D&D. [/QUOTE]

Verification