Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Pros and Cons of going mainstream
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6128143" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>Well, you and I have discussed this! - for instance, using p 42 to set ad hoc damage as consequences for a failed improvisational check.</p><p></p><p>For me, this is one of the telling signs of indie design influence on 4e. Of course, many of the features that support it - heaing surges, scaling DCs, damage-by-level, etc, are quite unpopular.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I'm with Hussar on this one - I don't think 2nd ed AD&D was very flexible at all - the "dramatist" style of 2nd ed seems to consist mostly in the GM fudging/railroading around the mechanics to make things come out the "right" way.</p><p></p><p>"Traditional D&D" covers a very wide range of styles, I think. For instance, I think 4e does a better job of the sort of game the 1986 Oriental Adventures seemed to be aimed at than does that system itself.</p><p></p><p>I think one thing where [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] is right about "transparency" is that applying the sort of fiat/fudging/railroading to 4e as 2nd ed seems to rely upon will be very obvious - far more obvious than in 2nd ed, where the systems are quite opaque even without fiat/fudging. Which might make it <em>seem</em> less flexible.</p><p></p><p></p><p>And there is one edition of D&D that I know of that builds the whole system around these easily-improvised resolution methods, and that has a section headed "Actions the Rules Don't Cover" - 4e, and page 42.</p><p></p><p>So I don't know where the idea comes from that 4e can't be played this way. (Actually, one of the more frequent criticisms of 4e is that it resolves grapple as a STR check.)</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 6128143, member: 42582"] Well, you and I have discussed this! - for instance, using p 42 to set ad hoc damage as consequences for a failed improvisational check. For me, this is one of the telling signs of indie design influence on 4e. Of course, many of the features that support it - heaing surges, scaling DCs, damage-by-level, etc, are quite unpopular. I'm with Hussar on this one - I don't think 2nd ed AD&D was very flexible at all - the "dramatist" style of 2nd ed seems to consist mostly in the GM fudging/railroading around the mechanics to make things come out the "right" way. "Traditional D&D" covers a very wide range of styles, I think. For instance, I think 4e does a better job of the sort of game the 1986 Oriental Adventures seemed to be aimed at than does that system itself. I think one thing where [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] is right about "transparency" is that applying the sort of fiat/fudging/railroading to 4e as 2nd ed seems to rely upon will be very obvious - far more obvious than in 2nd ed, where the systems are quite opaque even without fiat/fudging. Which might make it [I]seem[/I] less flexible. And there is one edition of D&D that I know of that builds the whole system around these easily-improvised resolution methods, and that has a section headed "Actions the Rules Don't Cover" - 4e, and page 42. So I don't know where the idea comes from that 4e can't be played this way. (Actually, one of the more frequent criticisms of 4e is that it resolves grapple as a STR check.) [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Pros and Cons of going mainstream
Top