Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="P1NBACK" data-source="post: 5986112" data-attributes="member: 83768">Yeah, I don't buy the &quot;simple / abstract&quot; is not &quot;realistic&quot; either. [I'll use &quot;plausible&quot; instead of &quot;realistic&quot; though.]B/X is simplistic, abstract in a lot of ways but relies heavily on plausible fiction backed by some elements of wonder and magic. The barebones rules lean on the gamers at the table to make varied judgment calls about what may or may not make sense within the context of their game world. 4E is super detailed, not very abstract but relies more on game constructs taking precedence over plausibility within the fiction. The gamers rely on the super detailed rules to make the game churn and bend their game world to fit the rules. I would argue that fans of old school D&amp;D are more interested in a rules set that allows them more of a B/X experience, whether simple and abstract (core) or detailed (modules). Whereas 4E fans prefer the latter experience, whether simple and abstract (core) or detailed (modules). Specific numbers of how many people want the rules to supplement their game world vs. how many people want the game world to supplement their rules I have no idea. But, if Mearls and Co. can strike a solid balance or give both camps the right simple / abstract core, then I think they'll be able to have some success with both.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="P1NBACK, post: 5986112, member: 83768"] Yeah, I don't buy the "simple / abstract" is not "realistic" either. [I'll use "plausible" instead of "realistic" though.] B/X is simplistic, abstract in a lot of ways but relies heavily on plausible fiction backed by some elements of wonder and magic. The barebones rules lean on the gamers at the table to make varied judgment calls about what may or may not make sense within the context of their game world. 4E is super detailed, not very abstract but relies more on game constructs taking precedence over plausibility within the fiction. The gamers rely on the super detailed rules to make the game churn and bend their game world to fit the rules. I would argue that fans of old school D&D are more interested in a rules set that allows them more of a B/X experience, whether simple and abstract (core) or detailed (modules). Whereas 4E fans prefer the latter experience, whether simple and abstract (core) or detailed (modules). Specific numbers of how many people want the rules to supplement their game world vs. how many people want the game world to supplement their rules I have no idea. But, if Mearls and Co. can strike a solid balance or give both camps the right simple / abstract core, then I think they'll be able to have some success with both. [/QUOTE]

Verification