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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 4411551" data-attributes="member: 42582">For what it's worth, I agree with Gothmog and Mustrum Ridcully, both in the sense that 4e emphasies play over build (be that build of character or build of world), and that this makes it more adapted for either gamist or narrativist purposes than for simulationist purposes (I think in saying this I'm also agreeing with ProfessorCirno).I also think that this probably increases its suitability for casual play, but I'd agree with Mustrum that it is not suitable only for casual play.I think in playing 4e you probably have to be prepared to separate the ingame from the metagame - eg just because the game rules don't let my PC do it, and I know that (because I've already spent my daily power), it doesn't mean that in the gameworld it can't happen, it's just that in the gameworld it doesn't happen. If you try to read all the rules constraints back into the gameworld (as some put it, treat the rules as the physics of the gameworld) then the gameworld will look a bit strange.Some players (especially, in my experience, those who really like Runequest or RM or the non-optimisation character-build aspects of 3E) might find this a bit grating.Another difference that I don't think has been mentioned yet is between 3.5 and 4e in respect of "reward mechancis": 4e has flexible but (more-or-less clearly) spelled out XP rules (not just for combat but also for quests and skill challenges) and a slightly different approach to the awarding of treasure. Moreso than 3E, and consistent with what Mustrum said about GNS and also what ProfCirno said, it begins by addressing head on the question of which treasures should be awarded over the course of the adventure, and then looks at how those can be usefully and meaningfully placed, rather than starting with "What sort of treasure would this dragon have?"</blockquote>

Verification