Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 5695770" data-attributes="member: 22779">Really?&nbsp; Hrm, the powers rules are straight from Tome of Magic and Tome of Battle.&nbsp;&nbsp; Most of the mechanics are pretty much the same - the skills, while differently named, work exactly the same way in both edition.&nbsp; On and on.&nbsp; 4e is FAR closer mechanically to 3e than, say, Basic/Expert.&nbsp; So, does that mean that 3e isn't an evolutionary change?&nbsp; Heck, 4e is closer to 3e than 3e is to 2e.&nbsp; 3e changed pretty much every single mechanic from 2e.&nbsp; Every class got changed, task resolution mechanics got massively changed, adventure design got completely reworked and flavour was GREYHAWK which didn't even appear in any significant form in 2e.Yes, to me it's an evolutionary change.Fair enough.&nbsp; They could certainly go in a direction that I don't like.&nbsp; So what?&nbsp; I've got a game that I like.&nbsp; The mistake you make here is that you presume that I will think that I don't like it means that I think it's inferior.&nbsp; I don't like 1e.&nbsp; I make no secret of that.&nbsp; But, I don't think it's &quot;inferior&quot;.&nbsp; It's a well designed game that I don't like. Superior and inferior are not and never should be, tied to taste.I played the heck out of every edition of D&amp;D.&nbsp; I played many, many hours of 1e D&amp;D (or, well, our faulty understanding of it), yet I changed to 2e when it came out because the design priorities of 2e were more in keeping with what I wanted.&nbsp; I resisted switching to 3e for quite a while because I didn't see the point in switching editions.&nbsp; Then someone ran a 3e game for me, and I saw that it fit much better with what I wanted at that time.Then I played the crap out of 3e.&nbsp; After a while, I realized that there were parts that I didn't like (mostly having to do with the amount of work it would require for me to design adventures that I liked) and I only ran modules in 3e.&nbsp; Then 4e came out and I switched to 4e because it had what I considered to be the best of 3e - consistent rules that make sense, focus on stuff that I like - but it dropped the workload for DM'ing to a very, very small fraction.&nbsp; Suddenly I could design adventures and not have it feel like a part time job.The problem is, people presume that because someone changes edition they don't like the previous edition.&nbsp; That's not it at all.&nbsp; It's that the previous edition was good, but the new one is better, for that person.But, then again, I've never, ever understood this compulsive need for gamers who are not playing to current edition to constantly bitch and complain about the current edition.&nbsp; We saw it all the time in 3e with people constantly whining about how 3e was video-gamey, animey, not really D&amp;D, so on and so forth.&nbsp; And, now, in 2011, we see EXACTLY the same thing with 4e.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 5695770, member: 22779"] Really? Hrm, the powers rules are straight from Tome of Magic and Tome of Battle. Most of the mechanics are pretty much the same - the skills, while differently named, work exactly the same way in both edition. On and on. 4e is FAR closer mechanically to 3e than, say, Basic/Expert. So, does that mean that 3e isn't an evolutionary change? Heck, 4e is closer to 3e than 3e is to 2e. 3e changed pretty much every single mechanic from 2e. Every class got changed, task resolution mechanics got massively changed, adventure design got completely reworked and flavour was GREYHAWK which didn't even appear in any significant form in 2e. Yes, to me it's an evolutionary change. Fair enough. They could certainly go in a direction that I don't like. So what? I've got a game that I like. The mistake you make here is that you presume that I will think that I don't like it means that I think it's inferior. I don't like 1e. I make no secret of that. But, I don't think it's "inferior". It's a well designed game that I don't like. Superior and inferior are not and never should be, tied to taste. I played the heck out of every edition of D&D. I played many, many hours of 1e D&D (or, well, our faulty understanding of it), yet I changed to 2e when it came out because the design priorities of 2e were more in keeping with what I wanted. I resisted switching to 3e for quite a while because I didn't see the point in switching editions. Then someone ran a 3e game for me, and I saw that it fit much better with what I wanted at that time. Then I played the crap out of 3e. After a while, I realized that there were parts that I didn't like (mostly having to do with the amount of work it would require for me to design adventures that I liked) and I only ran modules in 3e. Then 4e came out and I switched to 4e because it had what I considered to be the best of 3e - consistent rules that make sense, focus on stuff that I like - but it dropped the workload for DM'ing to a very, very small fraction. Suddenly I could design adventures and not have it feel like a part time job. The problem is, people presume that because someone changes edition they don't like the previous edition. That's not it at all. It's that the previous edition was good, but the new one is better, for that person. But, then again, I've never, ever understood this compulsive need for gamers who are not playing to current edition to constantly bitch and complain about the current edition. We saw it all the time in 3e with people constantly whining about how 3e was video-gamey, animey, not really D&D, so on and so forth. And, now, in 2011, we see EXACTLY the same thing with 4e. [/QUOTE]

Verification