Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Barastrondo" data-source="post: 5494572" data-attributes="member: 3820">Not knowing the player, I'd throw out a guess that this is not necessarily the case. However, it's possible that she's got a character in mind that is directly inspired by 3e. Those characters are the hardest to transfer over, in much the same way that 4e characters inspired by 4e mechanics/concepts are the worst way to show off what you can do with 3e -- I'd be very disappointed with 3e if I wanted to replicate my brawler fighter or my gnoll warden. It's tricky getting people to try a new edition or game if they're worried it will take away time from a game they already enjoy. And in that circumstance, they may want to hold on to current inspirations all the more, which makes it more difficult to set them aside and draw from the new thing's sources of inspiration. Unfortunate, because that's of course the best way to relax and have a good time with the new thing.Yeah, I agree. One of the advantages of 4e is that you can change things like demon-to-devil and back with incredible ease: you just change, what, a line of resistances and a keyword? The sense of identity is far more closely tied to how things are presented in-character than to the rules foundation. Of course, that can be a low point for some players rather than a selling point. Personally, I love that I can reskin a krenshar into a scarecrow with ease and have the players react to what they directly experience rather than to their metagame knowledge of krenshar stat blocks. But for others, the less flexible ruleset gives a greater sense of consistency. Either is pretty valid.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Barastrondo, post: 5494572, member: 3820"] Not knowing the player, I'd throw out a guess that this is not necessarily the case. However, it's possible that she's got a character in mind that is directly inspired by 3e. Those characters are the hardest to transfer over, in much the same way that 4e characters inspired by 4e mechanics/concepts are the worst way to show off what you can do with 3e -- I'd be very disappointed with 3e if I wanted to replicate my brawler fighter or my gnoll warden. It's tricky getting people to try a new edition or game if they're worried it will take away time from a game they already enjoy. And in that circumstance, they may want to hold on to current inspirations all the more, which makes it more difficult to set them aside and draw from the new thing's sources of inspiration. Unfortunate, because that's of course the best way to relax and have a good time with the new thing. Yeah, I agree. One of the advantages of 4e is that you can change things like demon-to-devil and back with incredible ease: you just change, what, a line of resistances and a keyword? The sense of identity is far more closely tied to how things are presented in-character than to the rules foundation. Of course, that can be a low point for some players rather than a selling point. Personally, I love that I can reskin a krenshar into a scarecrow with ease and have the players react to what they directly experience rather than to their metagame knowledge of krenshar stat blocks. But for others, the less flexible ruleset gives a greater sense of consistency. Either is pretty valid. [/QUOTE]

Verification