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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 6602087" data-attributes="member: 82106">Eh, its more people who just have a distaste for AEDU, mostly because it isn't the traditional mechanics. Thus you get gems like "Fighters and Wizards are all the same" etc. Its just not something you can even ascribe to any sort of logic, just visceral dislike rationalized into a form that can be presented in a forum post. See, I can understand and even sympathize with the sorts of things that Saelorn, etc are saying. They're not really even criticizing 4e, and even if they are at least there's some straightforward kind of reasoning to it that makes sense. I can get how Jameson's game differs from 4e in terms of resolution. Maybe I'm not convinced that it would work in a commercial game, but I can picture the differences. Its easy enough to see how 4e didn't really give any great attention to or really fit especially well with a logistically-driven exploration quest, and it certainly doesn't give more than lip service to things like running a domain or anything like that. Not that these are impossibilities within the scope of 4e mechanics, but if you push that sort of game then you probably run into the weaker aspects of the game without really benefiting from the strengths, so why not just run one of the nicer more modern OSR-styled systems that uses a pretty solid d20 core and lays all the old school thematics and agenda on top of it? Makes sense!I also understand the 'bridge too far' sentiment that WotC might have been better off to make 4e such a game, but they didn't. Maybe they could have hewed a line that was a bit 'to the left of' where they did go with 4e, I'm not sure. 5e isn't vastly far off in some ways, but it falls far short of 4e in others. It feels more like what 3e should have been than like what 4e should have been...</blockquote>

Verification