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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="LuckyAdrastus" data-source="post: 5325156" data-attributes="member: 82859">[MENTION=83096]AngryMojo[/MENTION]:Really good analysis on your last post, especially on the differences between 2e and 3e.  I'd give you xp, but I can't because I already did too recently!  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f60e.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":cool:" title="Cool    :cool:"  data-smilie="6"data-shortname=":cool:" />I think you get something basic about 3e: it is the edition that most focused on creating a unified mechanical system for the entire world.  That's a task which 4e never claimed to do, instead directing the DM to use DM fiat for many things like noncombantant NPC stats.I think this was both a benefit and a disadvantage for 3e.  It let you do something really fun: create a concept and say "how can I represent this as mechanically correctly as possible?"  I have a friend who plays Mutants and Masterminds 2nd ed (which mostly used 3e mechanics) and one of the funnest things he does is take classic comic heroes and represent them mechanically.  It can be quite a challenge (how to you stat Batman? Isn't he good at everything?) but can be very rewarding.In 4e, you often cannot do this, because the system is focused around two things more narrowly: statting PCs, and creating simplified monsters to defeat them.  Everything else that is challenging is handled by skill challenges, which simplify the mechanics to the point that the PCs are usually just rolling against easy/moderate/hard difficulties.  Although the skill challenge system was pretty weak in DMG1, by DMG2 it has become quite strong -- my regular campaign uses one almost every session, and they work great for us.In other words, if you wanted to introduce Aragorn the ranger for a negotiation, in 3e you would usually stat him out, which is as complex as making an NPC, and then roll opposed checks on various social skills against the PCs.  Assuming there is no chance of combat, all his other stats are wasted design time.  In 4e, you just throw the PCs against a skill challenge, use easy/medium/hard DCs as appropriate, and Aragorn never has stats.I think this is nice for 95% of gamplay in 4e, since you're focusing on the gameplayer.  But it does mean that 4e isn't a very good system if you just want the intellectual experience of statting out Aragorn.I think it also means 4e is better for you if you like re-flavoring, and 3e is much worse.  In 3e, you are supposed to represent everything with universal mechanics, and it usually works, but can sometimes break down.  Want a NPC chef who is fantastic at his job?  He better have a lot of HD or levels to get those skill points, so don't forget he can also clobber low level monsters with his rolling pin.In 4e, you can just hand-waive -- the NPC chef is good at cooking and bad at combat, even though the mechanics of the game doesn't express this with a mathematical number (except a skill DC if the party want to use a skill to interact with his food somehow!).Anyway, now I'm rambling too, but my point is that 3e and 4e are different games representing different directions for D&D from each other and earlier editions too.  3e is focused on trying to completely simulate a fantastical "reality," where 4e is focused more narrowly on facciliating the kind of gameplay that fills the majority of most tabletop RPGS -- combats and role-playing situations with meaningful chance of success and failure in how they effect the plot.They are different games with different purposes and different uses.</blockquote>

Verification