Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Lizard" data-source="post: 4024482" data-attributes="member: 1054">Then they need better marketing, 'cause that's the message I'm getting.And, again, you still don't think this will lead to combat requiring more thinking time? Different complexity&lt;&gt;less complexity. So instead of &quot;I can't use this because I'm flat-footed&quot;, it's &quot;I can't use this because I'm bloodied (or not bloodied, as the case may be)&quot; &quot;Does this provoke an AOO?&quot; becomes &quot;Does this give me Combat Advantage?&quot; &quot;Did I use all my first-level spells?&quot; becomes &quot;Did I use all my per-encounter powers?&quot; I am not saying these changes are inherently bad; I'm saying you can't have depth AND simplicity. They are contradictory goals. D&amp;D has always chosen depth; this is part of the fun and appeal of the game. When marketing says &quot;It's just as deep, but half as complicated!&quot;, I have to be skeptical until I see hard mechanics at work. Oh, and toss 'Bloodied' in the 'win' column, would you? It's a nice mechanic with a LOT of potential for cool tactical choices, including holding off on healing in order to trigger bloodied-only powers. Now, we need more stuff like THAT, and less stuff like &quot;Hobbits are taller now! And live on barges! Wheee!&quot;Except every other edition of D&amp;D. And, erm, most RPGs not explicitly based on LOTR. Oh wait...the Rolemaster version of the LOTR RPG had low-power rings. (And D&amp;D is much more Vance, Lieber, and Howard than it ever was Tolkein). Don't know about Decipher's LOTR game.What other games did have special rules for magic rings that did not apply to other magic items of equal power? I can't think of one, but I know I've missed some here and there. Earthdawn? Some edition of Runquest I missed? Which?No, not really. They were a LOT more forthcoming with the crunch in the run-up to 3e, in large part because they wanted to win back old D&amp;D players (by showing them cool new versions of the old rules they'd outgrown) instead of trying to lure in new players (by showing them lots of pretty pictures and not scaring them with the rules).I never had a problem with it. I also never had problems statting NPCs or doing any of the other 'hard' things. Either I'm a genius, or maybe some things really weren't so hard?Hence, the feeling that 3e respected and built on older editions (by keeping things which were emblematic of D&amp;D) and the feeling that 4e does not (for the same reason). I'm looking forward to Necromancer Games' products for 4e, because they &quot;get it&quot; in a way WOTC sometimes seems not to.You keep saying &quot;No one&quot; when I keep saying &quot;But my group does&quot;. Obviously, some people do NOT think it's too complicated. YOU do.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Lizard, post: 4024482, member: 1054"] Then they need better marketing, 'cause that's the message I'm getting. And, again, you still don't think this will lead to combat requiring more thinking time? Different complexity<>less complexity. So instead of "I can't use this because I'm flat-footed", it's "I can't use this because I'm bloodied (or not bloodied, as the case may be)" "Does this provoke an AOO?" becomes "Does this give me Combat Advantage?" "Did I use all my first-level spells?" becomes "Did I use all my per-encounter powers?" I am not saying these changes are inherently bad; I'm saying you can't have depth AND simplicity. They are contradictory goals. D&D has always chosen depth; this is part of the fun and appeal of the game. When marketing says "It's just as deep, but half as complicated!", I have to be skeptical until I see hard mechanics at work. Oh, and toss 'Bloodied' in the 'win' column, would you? It's a nice mechanic with a LOT of potential for cool tactical choices, including holding off on healing in order to trigger bloodied-only powers. Now, we need more stuff like THAT, and less stuff like "Hobbits are taller now! And live on barges! Wheee!" Except every other edition of D&D. And, erm, most RPGs not explicitly based on LOTR. Oh wait...the Rolemaster version of the LOTR RPG had low-power rings. (And D&D is much more Vance, Lieber, and Howard than it ever was Tolkein). Don't know about Decipher's LOTR game. What other games did have special rules for magic rings that did not apply to other magic items [I]of equal power[/I]? I can't think of one, but I know I've missed some here and there. Earthdawn? Some edition of Runquest I missed? Which? No, not really. They were a LOT more forthcoming with the crunch in the run-up to 3e, in large part because they wanted to win back old D&D players (by showing them cool new versions of the old rules they'd outgrown) instead of trying to lure in new players (by showing them lots of pretty pictures and not scaring them with the rules). I never had a problem with it. I also never had problems statting NPCs or doing any of the other 'hard' things. Either I'm a genius, or maybe some things really weren't so hard? Hence, the feeling that 3e respected and built on older editions (by keeping things which were emblematic of D&D) and the feeling that 4e does not (for the same reason). I'm looking forward to Necromancer Games' products for 4e, because they "get it" in a way WOTC sometimes seems not to. You keep saying "No one" when I keep saying "But my group does". Obviously, some people do NOT think it's too complicated. YOU do. [/QUOTE]

Verification