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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6210430" data-attributes="member: 42582">Perhaps. How does that relate to spell durations? Perhaps. I haven't played much 3E, but I don't recall seeing many 3E players argue that CR is as reliable as 4e's level-charts. How could it be? 3E is not based around the "metagame first" approach of 4e to assigning monster stats. (And this is a frequent criticism of 4e from 3E players.)I also see 3E combat frequently described as "rocket tag". This description could never be applied to 4e combat!I have played and GMed a lot of AD&D, and I know that HD/monster level is not a reliable predictor for difficulty.Also, none of this pertains to pacing or improv.I don't see how any of this relates to fortune-in-the-middle. I don't believe that 3E has FitM all over the place (hit points is the main place I can see) - the presence of FitM in 4e (also known as "dissociated mechanics") is a recurring criticism of 4e.Yes. Non-combat task resolution. They did not have non-combat scene-resolution mechanics. Extended skill checks are not the same as scene resolution. Skill challenges (especially at complexities 1 and 2) can be used as extended skill checks. But have a look at [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION]'s example upthread, or even the examples of play in the DMG and RC. Those are not extended skill checks.But that fighter has a race. Perhaps a theme. An alignment and god that establish conflict from the start in a way that is not the case with (say) the default 3E gods.As I've often said, if all the PCs in a 4e game are halfling archer-rangers, and all the monsters are ankhegs and kruthiks, then you probably won't experience this particular aspect of 4e. But it is very easy to do other than this in play.In principle every GM can write a setting like Glorantha, too.You asked what makes 4e suitable for indie play. I answered: its default setting does. The presentation of the setting doesn't give us a roll of years for Nerath, or even a geography of Nerath, nor the name of the local currency. Rather it gives us a mythic history which integrates the death of the last empereror at the hands of gnolls with a broader overarching narrative of law (and heaven) vs chaos (and primordials/demons). The world design foregrounds the stuff that indie gaming needs - vectors of conflict that is readily accessible to players and GM alike - and backgrounds stuff that gets in the way of scene-framing indie play (like endless world-building details that impede non-exploratory approaches resolution and prioritise exploration as a goal of play).This may be true, but I don't see how it has much bearing on the points I made.And this is the thing I don't get: people were right to drop 4e because it is too indie, but those who enjoy because it's indie are mistaking the nature of the game? How can both those things be true?I don't base my 3E knowledge on RM. I base it on my knowledge of the books, my very limited experience GMing and playing it, the more extensive experience my friends have with it, and my reading of message boards about it. (That said, RM and 3E have some features in common - the availability and importance of buffs; the viability of scry and fry as a tactic; a tendency to rocket tag in combat.)I think RM is a wonderful if in many ways deeply flawed fantasy RPG. I wouldn't have the patience to GM it any more, but could probably be persuaded to play it without too much trouble. The same is not true of 3E. It doesn't appeal to me, because it seems to me to combine the D&D tradition with more simulationionst/points buy design (a la RM, HERO etc) in a way that brings out the features of both that I least enjoy.</blockquote>

Verification