Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="howandwhy99" data-source="post: 4502567" data-attributes="member: 3192">I've already posted on another board how I don't care to denigrate another game just because it doesn't offer me what I want from D&amp;D.&nbsp; There's simply a lot.&nbsp; And to go into it bit by bit trying to convince others doesn't help anyone, to be successful in that endeavor would actually hurts the hobby IMO.&nbsp; Wizards needs to stay alive for our hobby to stay alive and they're not going to radically change 4E.I will say a lot of what is now published as D&amp;D is a mix of mechanics not suitable for what I consider RPG design, other design elements and some programmatic interactions in the game that are workable as a RPG, but offer a different experience than 70's and 80's D&amp;D, and a good bit of D&amp;D's kitchen sink options that are the Story Team's choices in what options D&amp;D offers and they are not quite what came before.&nbsp; Like races, classes, magic items, etc.&nbsp; People can dislike a game for world content options alone.I think every single one of these things makes 4E d20 more a game produced by the designers in both Design &amp; Story Teams than the game that came before.&nbsp; I think Wizards is very smart to have these separate two teams.&nbsp; It's just the original game was more of a self-designed and hand-picked game by one man: Gary Gygax.&nbsp; His personal choices and included toybox options may not be to everyone's taste, but there's no denying the game was more a work of one man's art.&nbsp; And I willingly admit that art can't be recaptured. It has to come from the artist, both in design and description.And so, yes, I do believe 4E is missing a lot of what was D&amp;D for 25-odd years.&nbsp; And I prefer most of that art and others' pastiches upon it over most of what is offered today.&nbsp; That's both mechanics and description I feel are overall superior.&nbsp; The 4E elements I feel are superior to 3E are the ones that harken back to earlier designs.&nbsp; This may seem like stubborn closed-mindedness to some, but I in no way accept all that early published material as good by default.&nbsp; Plus, I have my own experiential and logical reasons for why certain specific game elements are better than other current ones I disagree with.&nbsp; That said, 4E does improve on some of 3E, but declines in a number of ways too.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="howandwhy99, post: 4502567, member: 3192"] I've already posted on another board how I don't care to denigrate another game just because it doesn't offer me what I want from D&D. There's simply a lot. And to go into it bit by bit trying to convince others doesn't help anyone, to be successful in that endeavor would actually hurts the hobby IMO. Wizards needs to stay alive for our hobby to stay alive and they're not going to radically change 4E. I will say a lot of what is now published as D&D is a mix of mechanics not suitable for what I consider RPG design, other design elements and some programmatic interactions in the game that are workable as a RPG, but offer a different experience than 70's and 80's D&D, and a good bit of D&D's kitchen sink options that are the Story Team's choices in what options D&D offers and they are not quite what came before. Like races, classes, magic items, etc. People can dislike a game for world content options alone. I think every single one of these things makes 4E d20 more a game produced by the designers in both Design & Story Teams than the game that came before. I think Wizards is very smart to have these separate two teams. It's just the original game was more of a self-designed and hand-picked game by one man: Gary Gygax. His personal choices and included toybox options may not be to everyone's taste, but there's no denying the game was more a work of one man's art. And I willingly admit that art can't be recaptured. It has to come from the artist, both in design and description. And so, yes, I do believe 4E is missing a lot of what was D&D for 25-odd years. And I prefer most of that art and others' pastiches upon it over most of what is offered today. That's both mechanics and description I feel are overall superior. The 4E elements I feel are superior to 3E are the ones that harken back to earlier designs. This may seem like stubborn closed-mindedness to some, but I in no way accept all that early published material as good by default. Plus, I have my own experiential and logical reasons for why certain specific game elements are better than other current ones I disagree with. That said, 4E does improve on some of 3E, but declines in a number of ways too. [/QUOTE]

Verification