Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="innerdude" data-source="post: 6030986" data-attributes="member: 85870">One of the benefits of forums like this one is that it has allowed me to see differing viewpoints. In large part due to your descriptions of its gameplay, [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION], my opinion of 4e has softened, and I'm even somewhat convinced that with the right kind of campaign &quot;tone&quot; and style in mind, 4e Essentials would probably be something I'd like (4e as presented in the original &quot;Core 3&quot; is an absolute non-starter). I don't know if I'd LOVE it, or if it would be in permanent &quot;rotation&quot; for our group, but for the right kind of adventuring it would certainly be viable. The obvious problem for me is, there's no way I'm convincing my group to even try 4e---and frankly, they're leery of even giving 5e a shot (WotC burned some serious bridges with this group with 4e). I've never been on the bandwagon that &quot;4e isn't D&amp;D.&quot; Sure, it isn't D&amp;D as it was known, but its DNA is undeniably tied to it.I'm also kind of conflicted about the meta-game mechanics in 4e, because I think the decision to de-couple resolution from the fiction was done mostly &quot;blind.&quot; It was mostly done just because it was what was needed, not because they designers had a particular intention or vision for how it would affect gameplay. Also, I re-read the GNS essay on Narrativism over on the Forge the other night, and frankly, D&amp;D of all varieties from 1974 until now are frankly terrible at addressing a true &quot;Narrativist&quot; agenda. But that's another post for another day. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="innerdude, post: 6030986, member: 85870"] One of the benefits of forums like this one is that it has allowed me to see differing viewpoints. In large part due to your descriptions of its gameplay, [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION], my opinion of 4e has softened, and I'm even somewhat convinced that with the right kind of campaign "tone" and style in mind, 4e Essentials would probably be something I'd like (4e as presented in the original "Core 3" is an absolute non-starter). I don't know if I'd LOVE it, or if it would be in permanent "rotation" for our group, but for the right kind of adventuring it would certainly be viable. The obvious problem for me is, there's no way I'm convincing my group to even try 4e---and frankly, they're leery of even giving 5e a shot (WotC burned some serious bridges with this group with 4e). I've never been on the bandwagon that "4e isn't D&D." Sure, it isn't D&D as it was known, but its DNA is undeniably tied to it. I'm also kind of conflicted about the meta-game mechanics in 4e, because I think the decision to de-couple resolution from the fiction was done mostly "blind." It was mostly done just because it was what was needed, not because they designers had a particular intention or vision for how it would affect gameplay. Also, I re-read the GNS essay on Narrativism over on the Forge the other night, and frankly, D&D of all varieties from 1974 until now are frankly terrible at addressing a true "Narrativist" agenda. But that's another post for another day. :) [/QUOTE]

Verification