Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ariosto" data-source="post: 4977660" data-attributes="member: 80487">Wrong!You might as well say that by your reasoning you should always go for the most procedurally complicated human-moderated game available.Firstly, you have arbitrarily and wrongly assumed as a premise a hierarchy of values that is not mine. There is no &quot;that reasoning&quot; in place from which your &quot;should&quot; follows.Secondly, either your &quot;free form&quot; game defines things enough to distinguish them from other things, or it in fact has NO things. The OD&amp;D books are indeed &quot;system-less&quot; relative to darned near everything that's followed, but even some systems are quite wide open.The essential distinction is the degree to which 3e and 4e are prescriptive rather than descriptive, definitive endpoints rather than preliminary examples. They are &quot;must&quot; and &quot;must not&quot; rather than &quot;could, perhaps&quot;.That is in the nature of creating a complex game of abstract mathematical manipulations. It is not in the nature of creating a complex game of exploring an imaginary world.I just hope that the quite different phenomena have not been confused by someone who might prefer the latter without the former. &quot;I hate arbitrary complexity, but I want options&quot; could serve as a statement of why I much prefer &quot;0e&quot; to 4e.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ariosto, post: 4977660, member: 80487"] Wrong! You might as well say that by [I]your[/I] reasoning you should always go for the most procedurally complicated human-moderated game available. Firstly, you have arbitrarily and wrongly assumed as a premise a hierarchy of values that is not mine. There is no "that reasoning" in place from which your "should" follows. Secondly, either your "free form" game defines things enough to distinguish them from other things, or it in fact has NO things. The OD&D books are indeed "system-less" relative to darned near everything that's followed, but even some systems are quite wide open. The essential distinction is the degree to which 3e and 4e are prescriptive rather than descriptive, definitive endpoints rather than preliminary examples. They are "must" and "must not" rather than "could, perhaps". That is in the nature of creating a complex game of abstract mathematical manipulations. It is not in the nature of creating a complex game of exploring an imaginary world. I just hope that the quite different phenomena have not been confused by someone who might prefer the latter without the former. "I hate arbitrary complexity, but I want options" could serve as a statement of why I much prefer "0e" to 4e. [/QUOTE]

Verification