Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mustrum_Ridcully" data-source="post: 4542988" data-attributes="member: 710">It worked fine - but it can work even better.But I think it's less about working fine but more about working differently. 3E marked a point where the game seemed to have moved a little from "operation" or "strategic" play towards tactical (encounter focused) play. But it didn't move entirely. People that focused more on the tactical play encountered problems due to the strategic foundations still in the system. And 4E is removing most of these foundations to facilitate the encounter-based play better and avoid the flaws the 3E dichotomy introduced for it - but of course it removes a major portion of the strategic play. (But not all - surges and dailies are for that purposes, but they supplement or spice up the encounter based play, they don't wreck it)I have _really_ no idea about the distribution of the two play styles involved here. I can only suspect that WotC believed that the bigger audience would enjoy the tactical play more. Maybe it's because of the RPGA, maybe it's because of fans "at home", maybe it's just because that's how the designer play the game. But for anyone preferring the tactical play, the 4E implementation works a lot better then the 3E implementation.</blockquote>