Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="nedjer" data-source="post: 5059710" data-attributes="member: 83796">Totally fell of the bandwagon and I quite like 4e. No problem with making a few patches to speed up combat, consider it a polished 'battle game' and most players liked my roleplaying over combat slant.Grumbles came with the announcement of the number of books and the schism over 3.5. Players weren't sure about buying another set of books, etc . . . so, I probably went looking elsewhere because people often think of an RPG as expensive without considering how many hours it can deliver.Since then I wonder if I wasn't looking for a 'better fit' for me. The more 'chess'-like zonal combat, fast turns, some graphics, graphics I control, total customisation of the rules, lightening fast scenario frameworks . . . in the new system was a 'shoe-in'. Sort of 'explore and skirmish' over 'deploy munitions'.The (OK - unfair it doesn't have to be that way) '20 minutes fun in 4 hours' element was gone, players don't have to pay and are rewarded for playing well instead of knowledge of the rules.Changing was unsettling until I 'got' it/ sorted the basics from the options but I wouldn't go back. Can't imagine a three hour 'sealed' combat, a PC sheet without text and images, working from a pre-made campaign setting or letting a publisher decide what artwork I want to put in the rules.And I'm afraid it gets worse. Hooked up with the designers, GMing and playing twice as much as before and just off to spend the rest of the day exploring what seems to be a partially flooded, underground aquarium - where we'd just found cracks in some of the tanks and heard a splash in the dark behind us.</blockquote>

Verification