Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="ZombieMaster" data-source="post: 4776165" data-attributes="member: 83558">Well, first off, thanks for all the replies and help everyone. You guys were certainly helpful. Information and advice I asked for, and information and advice I received.&nbsp;The first conclusion I've made is that more research is ahead of me (but I knew that going in.)&nbsp;As far as the simulationist vs gamist thing goes, I'd have to say I do feel a little on the simulationist side but I understand I'm gonna have to get a feel for both before I really know (and I might just end up liking both for different reasons).&nbsp;I do think (from what I understand) I underestimated 4e out of combat ability though. It seems that (more) complicated rules and slightly restrictive but simpler rules both can be used well as long as you can tune them in with your gaming and your imagination.&nbsp;I will say another reason I have a lean towards 3 at the moment is the tremendous amount of extra material around it I could pull from. 4e must be catching up and will one day surpass it in all likelihood. But that only makes me think I should play with the wealth of 3e that is there now, so when I want to try something different 4e will be even more expansive than it is now. For example one of my players has expressed interest in a monk, which I can do in 3.5 now right off the bat, while in 4e will surely come but I have to wait. Luckily 4e seems like it can only get better with time.&nbsp;So I guess my feelings in short: I want to play 3 now and 4 eventually. But I'm gonna take your guys advice and try to get to know both before I make a final decision.&nbsp;As far as the sinking in the deep end, I'm gonna test run things until I feel comfortable enough with the rules before I start anything. I'd like to actually put together some tutorial stuff to bring my players up to speed before going anywhere.&nbsp;And again: thanks a lot to everyone.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="ZombieMaster, post: 4776165, member: 83558"] Well, first off, thanks for all the replies and help everyone. You guys were certainly helpful. Information and advice I asked for, and information and advice I received. The first conclusion I've made is that more research is ahead of me (but I knew that going in.) As far as the simulationist vs gamist thing goes, I'd have to say I do feel a little on the simulationist side but I understand I'm gonna have to get a feel for both before I really know (and I might just end up liking both for different reasons). I do think (from what I understand) I underestimated 4e out of combat ability though. It seems that (more) complicated rules and slightly restrictive but simpler rules both can be used well as long as you can tune them in with your gaming and your imagination. I will say another reason I have a lean towards 3 at the moment is the tremendous amount of extra material around it I could pull from. 4e must be catching up and will one day surpass it in all likelihood. But that only makes me think I should play with the wealth of 3e that is there now, so when I want to try something different 4e will be even more expansive than it is now. For example one of my players has expressed interest in a monk, which I can do in 3.5 now right off the bat, while in 4e will surely come but I have to wait. Luckily 4e seems like it can only get better with time. So I guess my feelings in short: I want to play 3 now and 4 eventually. But I'm gonna take your guys advice and try to get to know both before I make a final decision. As far as the sinking in the deep end, I'm gonna test run things until I feel comfortable enough with the rules before I start anything. I'd like to actually put together some tutorial stuff to bring my players up to speed before going anywhere. And again: thanks a lot to everyone. [/QUOTE]

Verification