Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Lanefan" data-source="post: 7748948" data-attributes="member: 29398">which might be a significant part of why 4e never held any appeal for me.&nbsp; I want the exploration.&nbsp; I want the mapping.&nbsp; I want the what's-around-the-next-corner sort of vibe.And any MtG players they were going to get would have come over with 3e, not 4e.Through the '90s WotC found massive success with a game - MtG - that as part of its design had to have a rule for absolutely everything.&nbsp; By 2000 the rules and rulings for that game were as big and as dense as a dictionary of the English language - I know this as I was doing (badly in) some MtG tournaments around then and had to keep up with this stuff.And so when they designed 3e D&amp;D there was an obvious move towards also having a rule for everything - hell, it worked in Magic, why not here? - and that was their play to attract MtG players.&nbsp; This may or may not have been a factor in 3e's out-of-the-gate sales success, I don't know.&nbsp; But to those of us used to 1e-era stuff, the MtG design influence on 3e in ths regard couldn't be missed.There's also a strong ethos that says the DM's job includes tweaking or kitbashing the rules system to suit her own game/self/players; and 4e (and 3e for all that) was not a very kitbash-friendly system - too many knock-on effects where changing something here broke things there, there, and probably there as well.And this was intentional on the part of the designers, as their definition of DM-proofing included kitbash-proofing.&nbsp; Compare this with 5e, where the specific design intention is to make it modular and thus kitbash-friendly.I don't see the connection - please elaborate.Lanefan</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Lanefan, post: 7748948, member: 29398"] which might be a significant part of why 4e never held any appeal for me. I want the exploration. I want the mapping. I want the what's-around-the-next-corner sort of vibe. And any MtG players they were going to get would have come over with 3e, not 4e. Through the '90s WotC found massive success with a game - MtG - that as part of its design had to have a rule for absolutely everything. By 2000 the rules and rulings for that game were as big and as dense as a dictionary of the English language - I know this as I was doing (badly in) some MtG tournaments around then and had to keep up with this stuff. And so when they designed 3e D&D there was an obvious move towards also having a rule for everything - hell, it worked in Magic, why not here? - and that was their play to attract MtG players. This may or may not have been a factor in 3e's out-of-the-gate sales success, I don't know. But to those of us used to 1e-era stuff, the MtG design influence on 3e in ths regard couldn't be missed. There's also a strong ethos that says the DM's job includes tweaking or kitbashing the rules system to suit her own game/self/players; and 4e (and 3e for all that) was not a very kitbash-friendly system - too many knock-on effects where changing something here broke things there, there, and probably there as well. And this was intentional on the part of the designers, as their definition of DM-proofing included kitbash-proofing. Compare this with 5e, where the specific design intention is to make it modular and thus kitbash-friendly. I don't see the connection - please elaborate. Lanefan [/QUOTE]

Verification