Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jhaelen" data-source="post: 5362214" data-attributes="member: 46713">Well, my first reaction was "Huh, they took a lot of stuff straight out of Runequest." <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />I guess, 3e is many things to different people. Imho, 3e was an attempt to close the gap to 'modern' rpg systems - and 'modern' is almost every system that was released after OD&D <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />4e had a slightly different goal: Reduce work for DMs and make the game more accessible for players. In that regard it's been more successful than any edition before (YMMV).In a way, 3e was great in theory, 4e is great in practice. 3e reads well, 4e plays well. But the improvements also came with a cost: Every pretense of simulationism has been removed from the game. The rules focus on the 'G' in RPG.I disagree that 3e was the odd edition out and 4e is really a continuation of 1e and 2e (assuming that's what the OP is suggesting). 2e was so close to 1e I don't even really consider it a separate edition. It was mostly just an errataed, streamlined version which incorporated some popular houserules to make them an official part of the game.Every edition had a different focus to make it the best game for the time it was released and for its intended audience.</blockquote>

Verification