Piratecat
Sesquipedalian
From Ari Marmell's blog. I believe he's posted it here as well, but since I'm not sure where...
And from the comments:
This is a good sign. I value Ari's opinion.
[bq]I've finally been told that it's okay to talk about my opinions in a little more detail.
As most of you already know, I've been both playtesting and working on 4E material. I can't say what, of course. But it does mean that I've had the rules for months now, and have been playing in an ongoing 4E campaign with a group of NDAed playtesters.
What I am about to offer are my true feelings. Anyone who feels like dismissing what I have to say because of any assumed bias is cordially invited to stop reading now.
When I first heard about 4E, I knew I'd have to learn the rules so I could keep working. But I was fully prepared to do so only for professional reasons, and keep playing 3.5 in my own campaigns.
That has, thankfully, turned out to be utterly unnecessary. I am absolutely in love with the 4E system, to the point where I'm not sure I would even be willing to play 3.5 again. Seriously; I like the system that much more.
The mechanics are more intuitive, the characters more mechanically interesting and--here's the big one--I haven't found D&D combat this exciting in years. I'm having a blast with this campaign.
Are there a few things I'd like to see done differently? I think that goes without saying. There's no such thing as a perfect system for anyone. But on a scale of 1 to 10, measuring to what extent I like and agree with all the changes, 4E easily rates an 8.5 to 9.
I'm sold--not just as a writer, but as a fan of the game who's been playing since 1983.[/bq]
As most of you already know, I've been both playtesting and working on 4E material. I can't say what, of course. But it does mean that I've had the rules for months now, and have been playing in an ongoing 4E campaign with a group of NDAed playtesters.
What I am about to offer are my true feelings. Anyone who feels like dismissing what I have to say because of any assumed bias is cordially invited to stop reading now.
When I first heard about 4E, I knew I'd have to learn the rules so I could keep working. But I was fully prepared to do so only for professional reasons, and keep playing 3.5 in my own campaigns.
That has, thankfully, turned out to be utterly unnecessary. I am absolutely in love with the 4E system, to the point where I'm not sure I would even be willing to play 3.5 again. Seriously; I like the system that much more.
The mechanics are more intuitive, the characters more mechanically interesting and--here's the big one--I haven't found D&D combat this exciting in years. I'm having a blast with this campaign.
Are there a few things I'd like to see done differently? I think that goes without saying. There's no such thing as a perfect system for anyone. But on a scale of 1 to 10, measuring to what extent I like and agree with all the changes, 4E easily rates an 8.5 to 9.
I'm sold--not just as a writer, but as a fan of the game who's been playing since 1983.[/bq]
And from the comments:
[bq]You know, I've sort of--not completely, but in a way--put my finger on what I like so much.
It feels like they've managed to create a complete game that doesn't feel cluttered. In a way, it's a feeling I haven't had since the Red Box basic set.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that
A) 4E is as simple as Basic, or
B) That Basic didn't have a great many flaws and mechanical problems.
But I believe that Basic D&D did a good job of separating out what did and did not need hardwired mechanics. I don't need ranks in "tailor" on my character sheet, if that's never going to have a mechanical impact on gameplay.
I'm a huge believer in roleplaying. I don't want my D&D to be pure combat simulation. But I've also, after the mechanics glut of 3.5, come to realize that if something doesn't have a mechanical impact, it doesn't need to appear in the mechanics--and that doesn't make it any less real to the character. Roleplayers will roleplay because they want to; people who don't want to RP won't no matter what the rules say.
4E manages, IMO, to give you exactly the mechanics you need, without giving excessive mechanics to what you don't, in a way that no prior edition has managed.[/bq]
It feels like they've managed to create a complete game that doesn't feel cluttered. In a way, it's a feeling I haven't had since the Red Box basic set.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that
A) 4E is as simple as Basic, or
B) That Basic didn't have a great many flaws and mechanical problems.
But I believe that Basic D&D did a good job of separating out what did and did not need hardwired mechanics. I don't need ranks in "tailor" on my character sheet, if that's never going to have a mechanical impact on gameplay.
I'm a huge believer in roleplaying. I don't want my D&D to be pure combat simulation. But I've also, after the mechanics glut of 3.5, come to realize that if something doesn't have a mechanical impact, it doesn't need to appear in the mechanics--and that doesn't make it any less real to the character. Roleplayers will roleplay because they want to; people who don't want to RP won't no matter what the rules say.
4E manages, IMO, to give you exactly the mechanics you need, without giving excessive mechanics to what you don't, in a way that no prior edition has managed.[/bq]
This is a good sign. I value Ari's opinion.
--but you're quite welcome.
