Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Balesir" data-source="post: 5471370" data-attributes="member: 27160">After some reflection, no this is not the case and slightly misses what seems to me an important point.Back in the seventies (I started gaming around 1975, I think, and I was DMing regularly by 1977 at least) I tinkered with rules and imported &quot;neat ideas&quot; from all manner of sources.&nbsp; The D&amp;D of the time was amenable to this sort of thing and, being young, new=good was a sort of built-in paradigm...&nbsp; I wasn't really sure what I wanted out of the game, but cool ideas are good, so using them in whatever I was doing now must be good, right?With time, a growing dissatisfaction with D&amp;D led me to modify more, and this exploded when I went to University at around the same time as several dozen new games hit the (newly burgeoning) game stores; RuneQuest, Traveller, Chivalry and Sorcery, Bushido, Daredevils, and radically altered &quot;house versions&quot; of D&amp;D took over completely from the &quot;old&quot; AD&amp;D.More years passed and I began to see the multiple distinct pleasures that could be had from RPGs, and the advent of the Internet allowed open, recorded discussion of the actual activity and nature of roleplaying with a wide circle.&nbsp; Eventually, I began to see different types of &quot;fun&quot; in different games.&nbsp; My ideas on what I might get from a game and how I might go about getting it clarified and began to crystallise in my mind - this process is still ongoing...Enter 3.x D&amp;D.&nbsp; In a trial game of D&amp;D 3.0 (which became a series of 3.x campaigns with the same DM - not me) I found I liked the tactical combat and some of the &quot;game&quot; elements around skills, crafting and such like.&nbsp; I also (re?)discovered D&amp;D through a number of world settings around this time (Birthright, Planescape and Dark Sun especially).&nbsp; It seemed to me that 3.x did tactical &quot;encounter-based&quot; play better that any previous game.Then 4E blew it clean out of the water.To me, 4E does simple, clean &quot;encounter based&quot; (actually, &quot;challenge based&quot;) play better than any other roleplaying game, bar none.&nbsp; It compromises many other areas, but retains total mastery of the &quot;challenge play&quot; - especially combat challenges (it's actually better at all others than any other RPG, too, IMO, but the bar is just not very high...)Now, for that kind of play, I want fixed, clear rules.&nbsp; I do not want to have to make up rulings on the spot or modify things as we go, because, as DM, my role in the game is to make the challenges tough.&nbsp; Any rulings I have to make in actual play will risk being coloured by my in-game role - and even if they are not, the players will feel that they may be!For my purposes when I run (or play) 4E, therefore, I want the ruleset handed to me entire.&nbsp; Adventures, settings and such are not essential (though they might save me some work), but the actual game system I want to be clear and fixed up-front.&nbsp; I want to be able to 'grok' it myself and have the players do the same and come to the same understanding.Set against that that I remain, after over 25 years, an avid devotee of the Hârn world and system.&nbsp; But, here I tinker.&nbsp; And I am happy doing so, because, for a world-based roleplay such as Hârn lends itself to, the rules follow the world, not the other way around.I visit Hârn to dream in company with others - to inhabit an alien world.&nbsp; I come to D&amp;D (4E) to game, pure and simple.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Balesir, post: 5471370, member: 27160"] After some reflection, no this is not the case and slightly misses what seems to me an important point. Back in the seventies (I started gaming around 1975, I think, and I was DMing regularly by 1977 at least) I tinkered with rules and imported "neat ideas" from all manner of sources. The D&D of the time was amenable to this sort of thing and, being young, new=good was a sort of built-in paradigm... I wasn't really sure what I wanted out of the game, but cool ideas are good, so using them in whatever I was doing now must be good, right? With time, a growing dissatisfaction with D&D led me to modify more, and this exploded when I went to University at around the same time as several dozen new games hit the (newly burgeoning) game stores; RuneQuest, Traveller, Chivalry and Sorcery, Bushido, Daredevils, and radically altered "house versions" of D&D took over completely from the "old" AD&D. More years passed and I began to see the multiple distinct pleasures that could be had from RPGs, and the advent of the Internet allowed open, recorded discussion of the actual activity and nature of roleplaying with a wide circle. Eventually, I began to see different types of "fun" in different games. My ideas on what I might get from a game and how I might go about getting it clarified and began to crystallise in my mind - this process is still ongoing... Enter 3.x D&D. In a trial game of D&D 3.0 (which became a series of 3.x campaigns with the same DM - not me) I found I liked the tactical combat and some of the "game" elements around skills, crafting and such like. I also (re?)discovered D&D through a number of world settings around this time (Birthright, Planescape and Dark Sun especially). It seemed to me that 3.x did tactical "encounter-based" play better that any previous game. Then 4E blew it clean out of the water. To me, 4E does simple, clean "encounter based" (actually, "challenge based") play better than any other roleplaying game, bar none. It compromises many other areas, but retains total mastery of the "challenge play" - especially combat challenges (it's actually better at all others than any other RPG, too, IMO, but the bar is just not very high...) Now, for that kind of play, I want fixed, clear rules. I do not want to have to make up rulings on the spot or modify things as we go, because, as DM, my role in the game is to make the challenges tough. Any rulings I have to make in actual play will risk being coloured by my in-game role - and even if they are not, the players will feel that they may be! For my purposes when I run (or play) 4E, therefore, I want the ruleset handed to me entire. Adventures, settings and such are not essential (though they might save me some work), but the actual game system I want to be clear and fixed up-front. I want to be able to 'grok' it myself [U]and[/U] have the players do the same [I]and come to the same understanding[/I]. Set against that that I remain, after over 25 years, an avid devotee of the Hârn world and system. But, here I tinker. And I am happy doing so, because, for a world-based roleplay such as Hârn lends itself to, the rules follow the world, not the other way around. I visit Hârn to dream in company with others - to inhabit an alien world. I come to D&D (4E) to game, pure and simple. [/QUOTE]

Verification