Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 5371753" data-attributes="member: 18280">I very much agree with this.&nbsp; 3e, especially as it evolved, has a serious prep time problem IMHO.&nbsp; However (and I think it is a big however).........I also agree with this.There is probably a maximum of complexity that a game can have and still remain playable to a wide audience.&nbsp; The difference between various games, IMHO, is not only how this complexity is used, but where.The 3e model (like 1e and 2e before it) allow that &quot;where&quot; to be &quot;anywhere&quot;.&nbsp; However, unlike 1e and 2e, the tight integration of complex systems in 3e can make players and DMs hesitate to make changes to the level of complexity of a system.&nbsp; If X becomes easier, Feat Y becomes useless, or Skill Z is nerfed.&nbsp; (The DM can simply allow characters to be adjusted for these changes, of course.)&nbsp; This leads to a great deal of complexity that many people, apparently, simply felt that they had to use.I mean, really, does it matter if a set of core rules contains information about how long a belt buckle takes to manufacture?&nbsp; I like the existence of skills like Craft and Profession; I do not believe that they need to be micro-managed to the level they are in 3e.Conversely, 4e maintains IMHO the same degree of complexity as 3e, or close to, but focuses that complexity into a few single &quot;where&quot;s -- character development and combat.&nbsp; And, if you do not like the systems for those you are in the same boat as the players who want to make some subsystem in 3e less complex -- you deal with cascading effects.&nbsp; Moreover, though, if you dislike 4e's take on those specific &quot;where&quot;s, the game has precious little else to offer you.(It should be equally obvious that, if you like 4e's take on those specific &quot;where&quot;s, the game also has precious little to detract from it.)As a result, I begin to think that a loosely integrated system with modular subsystems is probably the route to the widest appeal.&nbsp; But, then, 2e went the farthest along this route, and I stopped playing during the 2e era.&nbsp; So I could be wrong.Let me try again:&nbsp; A loosely integrated system with modular subsystems, a strong baseline experience, and focus on the actions/decisions of the players/PCs, is probably the route to the widest appeal.IMHO.&nbsp; YMMV.RC</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Raven Crowking, post: 5371753, member: 18280"] I very much agree with this. 3e, especially as it evolved, has a serious prep time problem IMHO. However (and I think it is a big however).... .....I also agree with this. There is probably a maximum of complexity that a game can have and still remain playable to a wide audience. The difference between various games, IMHO, is not only [B][I]how[/I][/B] this complexity is used, but [B][I]where[/I][/B]. The 3e model (like 1e and 2e before it) allow that "where" to be "anywhere". However, unlike 1e and 2e, the tight integration of complex systems in 3e can make players and DMs hesitate to make changes to the level of complexity of a system. If X becomes easier, Feat Y becomes useless, or Skill Z is nerfed. (The DM can simply allow characters to be adjusted for these changes, of course.) This leads to a great deal of complexity that many people, apparently, simply felt that they had to use. I mean, really, does it matter if a set of core rules contains information about how long a belt buckle takes to manufacture? I like the existence of skills like Craft and Profession; I do not believe that they need to be micro-managed to the level they are in 3e. Conversely, 4e maintains IMHO the same degree of complexity as 3e, or close to, but focuses that complexity into a few single "where"s -- character development and combat. And, if you do not like the systems for those you are in the same boat as the players who want to make some subsystem in 3e less complex -- you deal with cascading effects. Moreover, though, if you dislike 4e's take on those specific "where"s, the game has precious little else to offer you. (It should be equally obvious that, if you like 4e's take on those specific "where"s, the game also has precious little to detract from it.) As a result, I begin to think that a loosely integrated system with modular subsystems is probably the route to the widest appeal. But, then, 2e went the farthest along this route, and I stopped playing during the 2e era. So I could be wrong. Let me try again: A loosely integrated system with modular subsystems, a strong baseline experience, and focus on the actions/decisions of the players/PCs, is probably the route to the widest appeal. IMHO. YMMV. RC [/QUOTE]

Verification