Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Lizard" data-source="post: 4018397" data-attributes="member: 1054">And this, I think, is the crux of the problem. 3e gave you mechanics for damn near everything, and let you ignore the ones *you* decided you didn't need. 4e, from what I've read, decides for you what you need. It has, seemingly, stripped the game to the point where it supports only one playstyle mechanically, and if you want to play the game in a different way or with different emphasis, you have a lot more work to do. It's much easier, it appears, to run the type of games the designers think of as "D&D", but less easy to use the core rules as a toolkit. The game has become less generic and more tightly focused. This is, of course, my opinion, based solely on the preview material and designer interviews, which show us, what, less than 1% of the material in the game so far? "Red box" and other simple systems never appealed to me; I learned with the insane Gygaxian kitchen sink of wildly incoherent rules that was 1e, was repulsed by how bland and boring 2e was, and basically avoided D&D from 1988 to 2000. 3e  had the kind of crunch, detail, and depth which appealed to me, and it was quicker and faster than Hero, my other Game Of Choice. 4e might have a lot of 'hidden depth' they're not showing in the previews because they want to sell 'simple', and that's about my last, best, hope for liking it.Ari's work is generally great, and if he likes it, it's worth looking at in more detail, but the reasons why he likes it and the things I like in games seem to be opposed. So it goes. I've got enough 3x books to keep me gaming until I'm in the Shady Valley Rest Home.</blockquote>

Verification