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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Argyle King" data-source="post: 7651914" data-attributes="member: 58416">You seem to be assuming I'm saying I found 3rd Edition better.  I'm actually not arguing that at all.  However, I am comparing 4E to other games I play -which includes games that are not D&D.I'm also not even suggesting "fantasy vietnam."  What I am suggesting (and have said several times) is that the PCs are part of the world; not set so far above it by default.  Note, that's not the same thing as saying PCs are average or the same as NPCs.  I'm merely suggesting that I find it a bit jarring -especially if my intent is to run something "gritty"- that PCs are built on a scale which so easily exceeds the scale which the rest of the world is built upon.  To me, this is especially noticeable when you put the mechanics of 4E up against the early "Points of Light" idea.  The fiction talks about terrors in the night; demons; things man was not meant to know, and how hard the world is, but I dont feel the mechanics often do a good job of supporting that.  That's actually part of what I meant when I said I had the best luck with 4E when I didn't run it as a fantasy game; I ditched many of the default setting assumptions and went with what I can only describe as some sort of gonzo sci-fi/fantasy mix.  Again, I'm not suggesting it wasn't fun; it was a lot of fun.  It's just not anywhere near what I would consider gritty, and I believe making 4E gritty requires reworking a lot of the underlying math of the system.  Not math involved with HP or surges, but math even deeper than that; the math upon which pieces of the world are assumed to be built with; encounter budget guidelines, and things of that nature.</blockquote>

Verification