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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Caliburn101" data-source="post: 7023990" data-attributes="member: 6802178">4th Edition was a massive departure from the continuum of certain core elements of the D&D from 1st Edition onwards, and 5th has stepped back into that line of progression once again.I would agree that a lot of the book keeping was discarded in 4th, but whilst this could have saved time at the table (the best reason to drop it I would argue), it introduced other elements which were time sinks in and of themselves, so this particular potential benefit was not realised when looking at it holistically.4th played more like a pen and paper MMO and reminded me of the formulaic nature of tabletop wargames. I certainly saw far, far more 4th Edition games running at clubs using figures and maps than any other edition. In fact, there was a feeling generally that running it using TotM was a stretch to keep track of in one's head when running 4th.I know a lot of people liked 4th Edition for various factors, but I found it clunky and time consuming in a way which didn't add to the collective 'suspension of disbelief' required of TotM. This I think was both it's strength and weakness simultaneously.Let's be even handed though; on a core-crunch basis, 4th Edition was largely D&D only in name. Whilst fluff-wise one could successfully argue it was D&D, those feeling like it 'didn't feel like D&D' were correct when considering that most people regard both fluff and crunch as parts of the whole. If you fundamentally change the way a mechanic works but call it the same thing - is it still the same?Not really...It certainly didn't feel like D&D to me, nor indeed for anyone I know - but for what it set out to do, it catered for a certain style of play fairly well, and as a game in it's own right gave players and GMs the opportunity to run a new style of fantasy rpg.</blockquote>

Verification