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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Samuel Leming" data-source="post: 4031968" data-attributes="member: 16462">I'm no fan of GNS crap, but these differences in play style are not really just abstractions.I welcome these looser NPC creation rules.  I've not a single problem with them.What I have a problem with is the explicit intention to cater to the more gamist player.When playing a game of D&D, I like to relax, roll some dice, kick some orc ass, grab some loot, eat some pizza & drink some pop. I want to game with easy going people that are also there to have some fun and relax.  Overcoming challenges using the tools available and the particulars of the situation are fun.  I like to think during the game. The game is more fun if my fellow players approach the game the same way.I don't like obsessing about my character's stats before the game.  I want to have the fun of beating the situations I come up against, not building a character before the game designed to circumvent any reasonable challenge. Building a character to break the game is not fun.  It's not intelligent.  It's just vandalism.I hate it when players show up with characters that make game sense but have no rational explanation in the game world. I also hate it when most of the game is argument rather than just playing.  Sitting back and watching people bicker is not near as much fun as fighting imaginary dragons.I like the 3.x rules, but not once did I play a good game of it. Not once did a single game go by without somebody ruining the game for over half the players at the table.  Not rules problems.  Player problems.I'll take a "simulationist" system heavily seasoned with "gamist" any day over a game with a straight "gamist" bias just because of the kinds of players those games draw.  I've had plenty of fun playing C&C and M&M in the last few years.  Back in the old days I played many a good game of AD&D, Traveller, CoC, GURPS, Champions & even Toon.I've high hopes for 4e.  I've liked what little rules information I've seen(other than that silly thing about rings only being for 11th+).  The fluff... hasn't been as encouraging, but I can change that myself.  The PR?  I'll forget all about that if I'm running a good game of 4e.Once it's published, I'll give 4e six months.  If I can put together a compatible group of players and they'd rather stick with 4e than switch to one of the many other fine games available out there(such as C&C, M&M, True20, Spycraft, etc.) than 4e will be for me.Sam</blockquote>

Verification