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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Psion" data-source="post: 3865272" data-attributes="member: 172">I think, to be fair, it's hard to separate the two.Comments by designers in various venues make it pretty clear that there are elements of the 3e design that had major differences with. The design staff has changed over the years; I think part of the criticisms stem from differences in philosophy.A lot of these criticisms are, frankly, things that I have NEVER seen be a problem in my home game, but I could see arising in the RPGA. I remember Sean Reynolds commenting in defense of the (fundamntally flawed <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=";)" /> ) ECL rules that they were written to be so restrictive because they had to take into account the most abusive players.To me, this means that the system as played by an average group will be less than optimal, because the game is written to the "most munchkin common denominator".This will continue to be the case for 4e (and 5e and 6e). New editions are never going to make a game fit your playstyle exactly, and the notion that there exists and "objectively pure" game is faulty. The thing you eventually have to do is find a game and/or edition that fits your groups playstyle close enough, and then make it your own.Edit: THAT SAID, jumping back to the idea of "differences of philosophy", I would not dismiss at all the notion that the designers would sell their decisions as improvements as they shift into "marketing mode".</blockquote>

Verification