Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 5463011" data-attributes="member: 42582">The Shaman, I fully agree that it's different. Like I said in response to RC, and also on the "4e not as popular as it could be" thread, I think this difference may be part of why 4e is (apparently) not as popular as one might expect the RPG with that brand name, being published by what is still the leading RPG publisher, to be.On that other thread I also suggested that WotC hadn't done themselves any favours by giving so little guidance (in comparison to rulebooks for systems like HeroWars/Quest, The Dying Earth, Maelstrom Storytelling, etc) on how a game like this can be run well. I think the lack of that guidance helps produce games that reinforce the "just a minis game" and "just a dice-rolling exercise" impression that some have.And I haven't played Encounters, but I gather that's also a format that doesn't fully leverage the system. And the published modules don't (or, at least, don't contain advice on how a GM might do so).What's worse than losing your audience because they're more simulationist-inclined than you'd hoped? Not even giving them the guidelines to help them use the non-simulationist mechanics you're trying to sell them to run a fun non-simulationist game.</blockquote>