Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Obryn" data-source="post: 5564742" data-attributes="member: 11821">I think the disconnect is this, but I could be wrong...I agree, AD&amp;D and the Basic line had good rules.&nbsp; They were not balanced like 4e was, but they were solid enough that many thousands were sold, played, and enjoyed.I think what some 4e players want is for Mike to basically say, in each and every L&amp;L article, how older editions sucked and how 4e is the best.&nbsp; Not in so many words, mind you, but I think that's the gist.&nbsp; And when he doesn't say how great 4e is doing in his article, and doesn't say where the missteps were in pre-4e D&amp;D, they read it as, &quot;Mike loves older editions more than he loves 4e.&nbsp; Look at all the time he's spending on them!&quot;I think it's irrational, but then again, I've actually played 1e recently, and I have a ton of respect for both it and for the BECMI rules.&nbsp; (I'd also love to run the 0e retro-clone, although its name escapes me at the moment.)&nbsp; Do I think 4e's rule-set is a better chassis, mechanically-speaking?&nbsp; Yep.&nbsp; I think it is stronger mathematically, and I think it has a good handle on class balance.&nbsp; And I know it's made for some awesome fun at my home table.&nbsp; However, older editions - particularly way-older editions - have their own strengths, too.At least, that's how I see it, and I could be completely wrong.-O</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Obryn, post: 5564742, member: 11821"] I think the disconnect is this, but I could be wrong... I agree, AD&D and the Basic line had [I]good rules[/I]. They were not balanced like 4e was, but they were solid enough that many thousands were sold, played, and enjoyed. I think what [I]some [/I]4e players want is for Mike to basically say, in each and every L&L article, how older editions sucked and how 4e is the best. Not in so many words, mind you, but I think that's the gist. And when he doesn't say how great 4e is doing in his article, and doesn't say where the missteps were in pre-4e D&D, they read it as, "Mike loves older editions more than he loves 4e. Look at all the time he's spending on them!" I think it's irrational, but then again, I've actually played 1e recently, and I have a ton of respect for both it and for the BECMI rules. (I'd also love to run the 0e retro-clone, although its name escapes me at the moment.) Do I think 4e's rule-set is a better chassis, mechanically-speaking? Yep. I think it is stronger mathematically, and I think it has a good handle on class balance. And I know it's made for some awesome fun at my home table. However, older editions - particularly way-older editions - have their own strengths, too. At least, that's how I see it, and I could be completely wrong. -O [/QUOTE]

Verification