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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="tomBitonti" data-source="post: 5630197" data-attributes="member: 13107">(Lots of text omitted.)There are also those of us who moved to 3E and 3.5E because of a number of improvements (a tighter set of conditions and keywords, a linear advancement scheme, rich multiclassing, feats, skills), while at the same time, had to stomach new gamist elements (circular initiative, the action system, AOOs).  I'm an example of a person who has always been at least a little uneasy with some elements of 3E, but have managed to live with it because the rest of the system works very nicely, and lets me play a fun game.For me, the unease never really went away, it just retreated to the background.In stray moments, I've looked at games like WFRP (the latest edition), which is at the same time more concrete (re: spells, wounds, and armor, careers and advancement) while also more narrative (shared initiative, no grid use, fate points).  Or say Alternaty (with two levels of damage), or at rule sets that change Armor into DR.The discussion seems to be asking two related questions: "Is the concept of dissassociated mechanics a meaningful and useful concept?"  As well as "How well can we use the concept of disassociated mechanics to explore features of D&D, specifically, 3E and 4E.").I've taken a lot of ideas from the discussion.  I do find the concept useful, and I do think it applies moreso to 4E than 3E.  But I also find that a lot of the application to 4E are a bit unfair, as they too easily avoid examining 3E with the same sharp view.(Probably more to follow ...)TomBitonti</blockquote>

Verification