Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Iosue" data-source="post: 5809095" data-attributes="member: 6680772">Actually, I think that's exactly what Monte said.I really can't see that 4e is being ignored, at least not from this article.&nbsp; In order to create a unified set of rules that can be enjoyed by fans of any edition of D&amp;D, his perspective must be to a certain degree historical.&nbsp; 1e, 3e, and 4e all play very different.&nbsp; And yet they are all D&amp;D.&nbsp; So what is it that makes both 1e and 4e D&amp;D?&nbsp; If he can find those elements, he can use that as a base to integrate the disparate elements that distinguish the two.&nbsp; Fireball, magic missile and hold person were indeed integral to 4e as D&amp;D.&nbsp; 4e got a lot of &quot;This isn't D&amp;D&quot; flack as it was; imagine what the reaction would have been if the things Monte mentioned hadn't been in it.&nbsp; Speaking personally, I love 4e, but if there was no magic missile, I would have been, &quot;What's this crap?!&quot;Also, he did not say that the base game &quot;should&quot; have the feeling of OD&amp;D.&nbsp; He said that if you try to make a base game out of all those common elements of all the editions, what you just naturally get is something that looks like OD&amp;D.&nbsp; And he notes, &quot;Not coincidentally.&quot;&nbsp; BD&amp;D was a variation on OD&amp;D.&nbsp; 1e was a variation on OD&amp;D.&nbsp; 2e, 3e, 4e, they all built on the skeleton of OD&amp;D to create their varying styles.What he is certainly not saying is that OD&amp;D is a game we can all gather around.&nbsp; OD&amp;D is not the style I want to play -- I want simple character generation (BD&amp;D), unified mechanics (3e/4e), and the option for 4e style cinematic tactical combat.&nbsp; What Monte wants to do is give me the option to build on the skeleton of OD&amp;D to make the kind of D&amp;D I want to play.&nbsp; If he succeeds, the game I want to play will not &quot;feel&quot; like OD&amp;D, though the core game may look like it.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Iosue, post: 5809095, member: 6680772"] Actually, I think that's exactly what Monte said. I really can't see that 4e is being ignored, at least not from this article. In order to create a unified set of rules that can be enjoyed by fans of any edition of D&D, his perspective must be to a certain degree historical. 1e, 3e, and 4e all play very different. And yet they are all D&D. So what is it that makes both 1e and 4e D&D? If he can find those elements, he can use that as a base to integrate the disparate elements that distinguish the two. Fireball, magic missile and hold person were indeed integral to 4e [i]as D&D[/i]. 4e got a lot of "This isn't D&D" flack as it was; imagine what the reaction would have been if the things Monte mentioned [i]hadn't[/i] been in it. Speaking personally, I love 4e, but if there was no magic missile, I would have been, "What's this crap?!" Also, he did not say that the base game "should" have the feeling of OD&D. He said that if you try to make a base game out of all those common elements of all the editions, what you just naturally get is something that looks like OD&D. And he notes, "Not coincidentally." BD&D was a variation on OD&D. 1e was a variation on OD&D. 2e, 3e, 4e, they all built on the skeleton of OD&D to create their varying styles. What he is certainly not saying is that OD&D is a game we can all gather around. OD&D is not the style I want to play -- I want simple character generation (BD&D), unified mechanics (3e/4e), and the option for 4e style cinematic tactical combat. What Monte wants to do is give me the option to build on the skeleton of OD&D to make the kind of D&D I want to play. If he succeeds, the game I want to play will not "feel" like OD&D, though the core game may [i]look[/i] like it. [/QUOTE]

Verification