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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 5168946" data-attributes="member: 4937">Not at my table you didn't.  I picked up on something from 'Tomb of Horrors' and ran with it.  If you started hesistating, I started counting to six.  If you couldn't figure out what you wanted to do by then and state it clearly, then you lost your turn.  I still do that.  It takes alot of the dithering, page flipping, and so forth out of the metagame that gets in the way of the fun.I waffle back and forth over which edition had the most tactical richness.  Certainly 4e has tried the hardness to make tactical richness the center-peice of its play experience (with some success), but I'm inclined to think that they all have something or the other going for them.  Compared to 1e, I think both 3e and 4e suffer from tactical illusionism, where in you are making somewhat complex tactical choices but this complexity serves to mask the fact that - unless the DM is good at creating tactical puzzles - you are doing pretty much the same thing over and over.  In 1e, this problem happened alot as well, but when it did you were under no illusions about it and it was pretty obvious that the DM wasn't using his creativity well.  But 1e did do alot of things with weapon vs. AC, simultaneous movement, weapon length, facing, and so forth that I miss in new editions but which I don't want to port into their already complicated frameworks.No, but sometimes tracking down the d20 when it fell on the floor required a great deal of effort.</blockquote>

Verification