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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Nemesis Destiny" data-source="post: 6097144" data-attributes="member: 98255">Neither of us is talking about the 'basic game' here. I am not saying the game needs to be a basic version of 4e either, I'm not saying that at all. I also don't expect the basic game to satisfy everyone. We likely have not seen the basic game; more like basic with 'standard' extensions.What I will put forward though, is that I'm not seeing much room to add to the game the things that I like about 4e without extensive reworking (which they are not likely to do). Conversely, it would be far easier to tack on 3.x stuff, since the basic assumptions of the Next design cleave much closer to 3.x than they do to 4e.My point is that if their idea of a 4e module is to simply tack on a 'tactical' module and call it a day, then they've really missed the mark of what that edition is all about (like many people did).I don't find that to be the case at all. A good GM would not let a game system dictate any kind of constraints to them; a bad GM might not know any better, so at least if the game is competently designed, this shouldn't be much of an issue. Really awful GMs won't care what the system says anyway, but there's nothing you can do about them. I don't see why a system shouldn't be designed to be playable with an average GM though. Maybe I'm missing something...This is nudging dangerously close to an Oberoni fallacy. Just because you never had any issue, does not mean the issue was not a valid one. Designing things better from the start does not necessarily mean you don't get what you want. You don't need helpful rules and good advice, but some people do, so that's why they put them in the book. That still doesn't prevent you from playing how you like though.I agree. Even if it means I don't have any reason to run Next. That's for WotC to deal with.</blockquote>

Verification