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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6586463" data-attributes="member: 42582">I'm tackling these two together, because the "theory" you state here is not really part of OtE, and nor is it part of 4e.(See eg the stuff on player-created quests in the DMG p 103, Wyatt's sidebar on p 28 of the DMG, then big chunks of chapter 1 of the DMG2.)OtE was innovative in emphasising the role of player authorship, of the GM framing scenes in a way that speaks to the PCs' keywords/descriptors and hence leads to player-driven scenarios, etc.4e picks all that up - even its approach to paragon paths and epic destinies owes more, in their relationship to the dynamics of play, to OtE or HeroWars/Quest style free descriptors than they do to prestige classes and the old immortals rules: because PrC and immortality have to be earned, through play, and are ultimately under the GM's control; whereas Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies (and, later, themes) are under the players' control and thereby let the player dictate (in part) what the focus of play will be.If 4e had come out in 1990, with its "say yes" and player authorship agenda, all these devices for allowing players to take control of the content of the gameworld, player-authored quests, etc, it would have been regarded as an innovative game.Heck, in 2008 many regarded it as an innovative game simply because they're not familiar with all the prior design that influenced it. (Just as I've seen many people describing backgrounds and one unique thing in 13th Age as innovative, because they're not aware of Tweet's free descriptor game from 20 years ago - Over the Edge - that really was innovative.)</blockquote>

Verification