Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Crazy Jerome" data-source="post: 5634855" data-attributes="member: 54877">In 3E, the trouble cases get used anywhere that the GM or players don't put a stop to them. This also means that all the improvisations get used--until the table puts a stop to them.&nbsp;In 4E, the improvisations are used when the table actively decides to use them. This means that the trouble case don't get used except when they sneak into the game.&nbsp;If your table is heavy improv and low on trouble (abusing the spirit of the rules), then 3E and 4E can work equally well here. There is a shift in 4E of responsibility for how and when it gets handled, and this might mean that one or the other will work better for a given table or person. For people like me that prefer the 4E take on the responsibilities, the switch actually leads to more improvisation. YMMV.&nbsp;To the extent that a table has trouble, then the people that dealt with in 3E are not going to be inclined to let it back in easily in 4E, and thus I would expect such improvisations to occur less often. I'd also expect a dog to stop coming when you call it, if you whack it with a stick every time it did before. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin&nbsp; &nbsp; :D"&nbsp; data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" />&nbsp;To the extent that a table has a GM nervous about improvisation for some other reason besides trouble (e.g. heavy focus on playing strict and literal RAW for the sake of playing strict RAW), but otherwise has a pretty good game going--then the 3E to 4E shift is probably not going to work well. And why would it? The 3E design was centered on helping him out!&nbsp; He had a nice steak bone before, but now you want him to go with this low-grade plastic model? <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin&nbsp; &nbsp; :D"&nbsp; data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Crazy Jerome, post: 5634855, member: 54877"] In 3E, the trouble cases get used anywhere that the GM or players don't put a stop to them. This also means that all the improvisations get used--until the table puts a stop to them. In 4E, the improvisations are used when the table actively decides to use them. This means that the trouble case don't get used except when they sneak into the game. If your table is heavy improv and low on trouble (abusing the spirit of the rules), then 3E and 4E can work equally well here. There is a shift in 4E of responsibility for how and when it gets handled, and this might mean that one or the other will work better for a given table or person. For people like me that prefer the 4E take on the responsibilities, the switch actually leads to more improvisation. YMMV. To the extent that a table has trouble, then the people that dealt with in 3E are not going to be inclined to let it back in easily in 4E, and thus I would expect such improvisations to occur less often. I'd also expect a dog to stop coming when you call it, if you whack it with a stick every time it did before. :D To the extent that a table has a GM nervous about improvisation for some other reason besides trouble (e.g. heavy focus on playing strict and literal RAW for the sake of playing strict RAW), but otherwise has a pretty good game going--then the 3E to 4E shift is probably not going to work well. And why would it? The 3E design was centered on helping him out! He had a nice steak bone before, but now you want him to go with this low-grade plastic model? :D [/QUOTE]

Verification