Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Irda Ranger" data-source="post: 4497163" data-attributes="member: 1003">I've recently decided (after playing it a little more) that &quot;No, it's not.&quot;The two main reasons, roughly, are:1. Too boardgame. Feels like &quot;Magic: The Boardgame&quot;, rather than a pen &amp; paper RPG.&nbsp; This is D&amp;D independent, since AD&amp;D, Marvel, Alternity and Mage: The Awakening have the &quot;pen &amp; paper RPG feel&quot; that 4E appears to be missing. It's possible to RP with 4E, obviously, but that's not a great argument. It's also possible to reskin Chess or Monopoly rules as an RPG (&quot;I attack your pawn to avenge my father!&quot;) but that doesn't make them well suited to the task.&nbsp; The concentration on the tactical battlemat takes the focus away from the shared imagined space of the game world.It's just a little too far down the continuum towards Small-Unit-Fantasy-Wargaming to be something I want to play on a regular basis.&nbsp; As this is a matter of personal taste, it's probably similar to why I don't shop at Games Workshop.2. Too &quot;kewl powers.&quot; I don't like that phrase, but the Martial classes aren't martial enough for me (too magical feeling), and the Barbarian released today really drives home the point.&nbsp; Conan has no place in this game.&nbsp; Bo9S was a really cool &quot;Everyone's a Jedi&quot; variant on D&amp;D, but I'm not down with that as the default for my worlds and campaigns.&nbsp; I prefer Tracy Hickman's take on Sturm Brightblade to (as yet theoretical) John Woo's take on the same character.&nbsp; Matter of taste.------I'm not upset that I bought 4E or anything.&nbsp; There are a lot of good ideas in it.&nbsp; I'll definitely be taking the idea of Spells vs. Rituals with me, for instance.&nbsp; I like some of the Cosmology and the Alignment changes are inspirational (even if I won't use them as written).&nbsp; But as nice as some of the window dressing is, the core of the system just doesn't seem to be working. C'est la Vie</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Irda Ranger, post: 4497163, member: 1003"] I've recently decided (after playing it a little more) that "No, it's not." The two main reasons, roughly, are: [B]1. Too boardgame. [/B] Feels like "Magic: The Boardgame", rather than a pen & paper RPG. This is D&D independent, since AD&D, Marvel, Alternity and Mage: The Awakening have the "pen & paper RPG feel" that 4E appears to be missing. It's possible to RP with 4E, obviously, but that's not a great argument. It's also possible to reskin Chess or Monopoly rules as an RPG ("I attack your pawn to avenge my father!") but that doesn't make them well suited to the task. The concentration on the tactical battlemat takes the focus away from the shared imagined space of the game world. It's just a little too far down the continuum towards Small-Unit-Fantasy-Wargaming to be something I want to play on a regular basis. As this is a matter of personal taste, it's probably similar to why I don't shop at Games Workshop. [B]2. Too "kewl powers." [/B] I don't like that phrase, but the Martial classes aren't martial enough for me (too magical feeling), and the Barbarian released today really drives home the point. Conan has no place in this game. Bo9S was a really cool "Everyone's a Jedi" variant on D&D, but I'm not down with that as the default for my worlds and campaigns. I prefer Tracy Hickman's take on Sturm Brightblade to (as yet theoretical) John Woo's take on the same character. Matter of taste. ------ I'm not upset that I bought 4E or anything. There are a lot of good ideas in it. I'll definitely be taking the idea of Spells vs. Rituals with me, for instance. I like some of the Cosmology and the Alignment changes are inspirational (even if I won't use them as written). But as nice as some of the window dressing is, the core of the system just doesn't seem to be working. C'est la Vie [/QUOTE]

Verification