Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 5439641" data-attributes="member: 18280">I think that is wishful thinking.&nbsp; After all, the designer comments were not at all about building on what was first presented....quite the opposite, actually.&nbsp; I am fairly sure that making a game with the same label, but which departed from earlier material enough to escape the OGL, was an important consideration in the creation of 4e.I would also be careful to differentiate what a good GM, with previous editions under her belt, will make of 4e, in comparison to what someone coming cold to the game will do.As mentioned upthread, I started the game with Holmes Basic, which gives a very good idea of the direction that the game is intended to follow.&nbsp; The sample dungeon gives very specific ideas as to what an adventure area should include.4e does the same, esp. if you add in the KotS.&nbsp; If KotS was intended as the 4e equivilent of KotB (which came packaged with Holmes Basic in some cases, and I do not believe the similar names are coincidental!), the difference in tone and focus ought to be obvious to anyone.This isn't to say that 4e cannot be used to capture the same breadth of experience as any other editions (I enjoyed reading Piratecat's description of his recent skill challenge, for instance); it just means that the rules as presented (at least, in the first three core books) aren't going to do it with a novice GM at the helm.This isn't to say that WotC hasn't learned from reactions to 4e's initial offerings, or that it hasn't added some depth since.&nbsp; The degree to which WotC has done so....well, I leave that to those who have continued to follow the game.&nbsp; All I can say is:(1)&nbsp; Initial complaints about the depth of 4e were spot-on, and were brought up by the designers even before release as a feature, (2)&nbsp; WotC has learned and increased depth to some degree at least.&nbsp; Again, I have no idea to what degree.&nbsp; And, (3)&nbsp; Whatever depth has been added to the ruleset hasn't been translated very well by WotC into its modules.RC</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Raven Crowking, post: 5439641, member: 18280"] I think that is wishful thinking. After all, the designer comments were not at all about building on what was first presented....quite the opposite, actually. I am fairly sure that making a game with the same label, but which departed from earlier material enough to escape the OGL, was an important consideration in the creation of 4e. I would also be careful to differentiate what a good GM, with previous editions under her belt, will make of 4e, in comparison to what someone coming cold to the game will do. As mentioned upthread, I started the game with Holmes Basic, which gives a very good idea of the direction that the game is intended to follow. The sample dungeon gives very specific ideas as to what an adventure area should include. 4e does the same, esp. if you add in the KotS. If KotS was intended as the 4e equivilent of KotB (which came packaged with Holmes Basic in some cases, and I do not believe the similar names are coincidental!), the difference in tone and focus ought to be obvious to anyone. This isn't to say that 4e cannot be used to capture the same breadth of experience as any other editions (I enjoyed reading Piratecat's description of his recent skill challenge, for instance); it just means that the rules as presented (at least, in the first three core books) aren't going to do it with a novice GM at the helm. This isn't to say that WotC hasn't learned from reactions to 4e's initial offerings, or that it hasn't added some depth since. The degree to which WotC has done so....well, I leave that to those who have continued to follow the game. All I can say is: (1) Initial complaints about the depth of 4e were spot-on, and were brought up by the designers even before release as a feature, (2) WotC has learned and increased depth to some degree at least. Again, I have no idea to what degree. And, (3) Whatever depth has been added to the ruleset hasn't been translated very well by WotC into its modules. RC [/QUOTE]

Verification