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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mercurius" data-source="post: 5368117" data-attributes="member: 59082">I couldn't agree with you more, and I imagine the writers of 3E and 4E would be right here with us. I agree with ByronD that this is more of a "Bad DM" thing than a specific system thing, although I will say that AD&D--both 1E and 2E--were more prone to this sort of thing than 3E and 4E.We'll have to share notes at some point. And what's with us always agreeing, TerraDave? We'll have to find something to squabble about <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />.Lots of good stuff here. I totally hear you about the complications of 4E (and 3E) in terms of the default mode of play. This is one of my biggest complaints about my current game of choice, 4E, that the default mode (of combat) is quite complex and very tactical. What ends up happening is a very enjoyable experience, but I also don't like that it always "has to" be at that level of detail, that one always has get tactical with which powers to use, with pushing, pulling, etc, positioning on a battlemap, etc. All of that stuff is fun--but I'd prefer to use it in 70-90% of combats, not 100% (Sure, one can always make a basic attack or use an at-will, but it ends up being a severe disadvantage). I also like the core system of both 3E and 4E much better than any previous edition. I remember when 3E came out it made previous editions seem almost primitive. In 1999 AD&D 2E had lagged way behind game design; the game was a lumbering, awkward dinosaur, surpassed in game design over a decade before with much more refined, elegant, and streamlined systems like Ars Magica, Storyteller, and Talislanta (It is worth noting that one of the main designers of 3E was Jonathan Tweet, who was partially responsible for Ars Magica and one edition of Talislanta).So 3E was a quantum leap forward for Dungeons & Dragons. Yet because of its simple, streamlined core mechanic, the designers said "Cool, this is much simpler...so let's dump a ton of options on it!" Which is how 3.x became, in many ways, the most complicated and "rules heavy" version of D&D yet (or since). A lot of this was written into the core rules, but a lot also came later, especially in the form of endless feats and prestige classes. To put it another way, too many options!4E reset this a bit and streamlined the core rules even further. But then the options came, and just a couple years later we're back where we were with 3.5, although this time helped out a bit by DDI.I was really hoping that Essentials was going to be a simplified version of 4E, that it would be like BECMI was to AD&D, yet fully compatible and modular. I still hope that if and when 5E comes out, we will have a much simplified core--something on the level of BECMI or Castles & Crusades--with a complex, advanced set of rules around it, that can easily be added on depending upon the specific campaign.Again, this is not to say that I don't like the complexities; I do, otherwise I'd be playing Savage Worlds or FATE or True20. But I just wish there was more scale-ability and modularity in terms of modes of play. This relates somewhat to the common complaint that 4E advocates and supports a rather narrow range of play - not quite as gonzo as Exalted, but without the capacity to play "off the farm" PCs. In some sense 4E 1st level characters are similar to what 5th level characters in AD&D were like. Of course anyone who played 1E knows that magic-users weren't at all playable until about 3rd level and only got interesting with 5th level, when lightning bolt and fireball became available. But it isn't an either/or thing, imo, and this is one of a few areas where 4E really missed the boat.</blockquote>

Verification