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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 6280604" data-attributes="member: 22779">Yeah, I think that's the long and the short of it.  For me, it did fit.  I liked the solutions that they proposed.  But, then again, I've been so long without a stable group (the current one is probably the longest running I've had since high school and it's still around 4 years old) that a number of the 4e solutions to issues worked for me.  I've had to stay so close to rules as written for so long because it would be such a PITA to constantly have to go through a shopping list of house rules for the new guy at my table almost every single month.Never mind that most groups evolve a lot of those house rules more or less unconsciously.  They're never written down because it just isn't an issue.  I dunno.  For groups that aren't that stable, it's not a bad philosophy.  When you have a new player at your table every fourth session, having to explain for the ten thousandth time that you do things this way becomes really, really frustrating.  Also, there are a ton of failed games out there and failed groups.  The idea behind standardising the experience to some degree is to reduce the number of more egregious games out there.  Following the 4e DMG might not result in the greatest game ever, but, it will result in a good, fun game.  Which hopefully keeps players coming back.And, let's not forget, that there was supposed to be a 3d virtual gaming table available over Xbox Live which never materialised.  Again, if the online play option had gotten off the ground, then you'd see a LOT more groups playing in a more Organized Play vein.  The murder of the lead on the virtual tabletop project really threw a spanner in the works.  Plus a legal battle with Atari over rights to develop the VTT didn't help either.There were a lot more things contributing to 4e's problems than the mechanics.</blockquote>

Verification