Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 7526821" data-attributes="member: 82106">I have to agree with this:4e is coherent! 2e, 3e, 5e, not coherent. Every rule and game system in 4e is in service to its goals and work in harmony to attain them. If a rule would detract from that, then it is restructured to conform with the whole. AD&amp;D certainly lacked this. Many rules simply existed because (apparently) they 'sounded good', or were 'common sense' or 'realistic' or some other befuddled notions. 1e, being closer in spirit and mechanics, to the origins of D&amp;D as a pure dungeon crawling game with open-ended elements, was considerably more coherent, but even it reflected a lot of ad-hoc design and choices which don't seem to have really been well considered WRT the whole.3e and 5e seem to try to serve multiple masters. I think, with 5e at least, you can treat it as a moderately coherent game, but there are still some aspects which simply don't fit and seem to have been inserted merely for the purpose of appealing to specific desires for things to be more 'old fashioned' (or perhaps other interests, but not any kind of coherent game system).So there is something fundamentally different with 4e, which I recall identifying as soon as I dived into the rules back in '08. It really is distinct from all other D&amp;D's in this respect!</blockquote>

[QUOTE="AbdulAlhazred, post: 7526821, member: 82106"] I have to agree with this: 4e is coherent! 2e, 3e, 5e, not coherent. Every rule and game system in 4e is in service to its goals and work in harmony to attain them. If a rule would detract from that, then it is restructured to conform with the whole. AD&D certainly lacked this. Many rules simply existed because (apparently) they 'sounded good', or were 'common sense' or 'realistic' or some other befuddled notions. 1e, being closer in spirit and mechanics, to the origins of D&D as a pure dungeon crawling game with open-ended elements, was considerably more coherent, but even it reflected a lot of ad-hoc design and choices which don't seem to have really been well considered WRT the whole. 3e and 5e seem to try to serve multiple masters. I think, with 5e at least, you can treat it as a moderately coherent game, but there are still some aspects which simply don't fit and seem to have been inserted merely for the purpose of appealing to specific desires for things to be more 'old fashioned' (or perhaps other interests, but not any kind of coherent game system). So there is something fundamentally different with 4e, which I recall identifying as soon as I dived into the rules back in '08. It really is distinct from all other D&D's in this respect! [/QUOTE]

Verification