Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Philotomy Jurament" data-source="post: 4447519" data-attributes="member: 20854">I frequent both of those boards.&nbsp; My take on it is that 3e and 4e play and feel similar, and are dissimilar from the older editions I prefer (viz. OD&amp;D, Holmes, and early AD&amp;D 1e).&nbsp; I find that 3e and 4e both have a strong emphasis on tactical combat, mechanics, and PC skills/powers/details, which tends to emphasize those aspects of play.&nbsp; 3e and 4e provide a much more defined framework for running the game; many find that to be an improvement, but I don't.&nbsp; <a href="http://www.philotomy.com/#player_vs_pc" target="_blank">Mike Mearls commented</a> on one way 4E differs significantly from OD&amp;D; I think his comment is spot-on, and applies to 3E, as well.I think 4E is a different game with the same name.&nbsp; I think that there are enough significant differences in its rules, fluff, and approach to push it over the line into &quot;different game,&quot; much like Rolemaster is a different game that can still have a D&amp;Dish feel in play.&nbsp; I realize that not all agree; so be it.&nbsp; (FWIW, I think the same thing about d20/3E, although perhaps not quite to the same extent.)Today, if I want to play &quot;D&amp;D,&quot; my first choice would be one of the TSR editions; those provide the baseline for what D&amp;D is, to me.&nbsp; I might play a d20-based game, but not for &quot;D&amp;D;&quot; it would be a different thing.&nbsp; In the same way, I might play a 4E game, but not for &quot;D&amp;D;&quot; it would be its own thing.I think I'd pick 4E over 3E, if I were just examining them as something to play without regard to the &quot;D&amp;D&quot; name/idea.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Philotomy Jurament, post: 4447519, member: 20854"] I frequent both of those boards. My take on it is that 3e and 4e play and feel similar, and are dissimilar from the older editions I prefer (viz. OD&D, Holmes, and early AD&D 1e). I find that 3e and 4e both have a strong emphasis on tactical combat, mechanics, and PC skills/powers/details, which tends to emphasize those aspects of play. 3e and 4e provide a much more defined framework for running the game; many find that to be an improvement, but I don't. [url=http://www.philotomy.com/#player_vs_pc]Mike Mearls commented[/url] on one way 4E differs significantly from OD&D; I think his comment is spot-on, and applies to 3E, as well. I think 4E is a different game with the same name. I think that there are enough significant differences in its rules, fluff, and approach to push it over the line into "different game," much like Rolemaster is a different game that can still have a D&Dish feel in play. I realize that not all agree; so be it. (FWIW, I think the same thing about d20/3E, although perhaps not quite to the same extent.) Today, if I want to play "D&D," my first choice would be one of the TSR editions; those provide the baseline for what D&D is, to me. I might play a d20-based game, but not for "D&D;" it would be a different thing. In the same way, I might play a 4E game, but not for "D&D;" it would be its own thing. I think I'd pick 4E over 3E, if I were just examining them as something to play without regard to the "D&D" name/idea. [/QUOTE]

Verification