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: 5577686" data-attributes="member: 82106">Mmmm, yes and no. I agree that once a character concept is established all you can say about rules which restrict you to certain concepts is that you have more limited choices to start with, sure. OTOH the rule I was citing from 1e does a bit more than that. It seems to forbid the character from taking an action in-game. Honestly the 1e rules are pretty ambiguous on this point, but they seem to forbid something like an M.U. picking up a sword AT ALL during play. Truthfully it is a rather nitpicky thing, but it is a good example of the sort of thing I'm talking about.I didn't, intentionally at any rate, disparage anyone else's point of view. I do think there's a fundamental difference in approach that I find makes a big difference in favor of 4e to me, and that it is orthogonal to rules complexity (or more rules volume, I think that 1e in many ways is actually more complicated than 4e is). I generally feel like the 4e rules will get out of my way, whereas AD&D and 3.x not so much. Maybe we should define 'immersion' as "what happens when you have to compromise what happens in game to accommodate the rules"? I don't think that happens a lot in 4e in a particularly intrusive way. I think that is a strength of exception based design, you always have a very generalized set of basic core rules to lean on. Older editions of D&D were always tossing another subsystem at you that produced wonkiness or just prohibited this or that. In 4e my wizard can pick up the fullblade and swing it. Not with terribly good effect, but at least the rules got out of my way and let me try.I'd think the most useful direction that a discussion like this can take is actually "where do we go from here"? I mean anything can be improved. No doubt there are going to be ways to improve 4e that we can all agree on.</blockquote>

Verification