NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="delericho" data-source="post: 5619139" data-attributes="member: 22424">Sure, punishing people simply for innovating is a bad idea. But on the other hand, that doesn't mean you have to uncritically accept whatever rubbish they put out, simply because they've dared to innovate.4e simply does not work for a lot of people and a lot of groups. For many of the 3e (or Pathfinder) simply works better - generally because they've checked them both out and made a rational choice.Here's the thing: when they were developing 4e, I agreed that the best way forward was to rebuild the game from the ground up. I supported and applauded that decision. I still believe it was the right decision, and in large part rejected Pathfinder precisely because they didn't take that path (and so were unable to really address some of the fundamental issues I saw).But...In a great many cases, the issues that 4e addresses were not the issues I had with the system. In many cases, the 'fixes' simply didn't work. In many cases, in fixing one problem they introduced others that were just as bad, or even worse.In other words, they took the right approach, and came up with entriely the wrong solution. That being the case, I'm not going to hail 4e as an improvement, simply because it's new. I'll agree with it's strengths, as I see them, but I'll also note it's weaknesses. And I'll continue to maintain that for me, 3e is the better game, despite its obvious flaws.Conversely, there's no benefit in innovating if the solutions you come up with are no better than what went before. Indeed, since radically overhauling the system inevitably means introducing a whole load of new kinks (witness: three years of extensive and ongoing revisions, with no end in sight), you're better off not innovating unless you are very sure that your revised solution is better.</blockquote>

Verification