Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 4280241" data-attributes="member: 42582">This is true. Of course, the same relationship obtained between 1st ed AD&amp;D and 3E. The former was a game with virtually no character build rules and virtually no action resolution rules, which was at its best in modules like White Plume Mountain, Ghost Tower Of Inverness or Against the Giants which pitted the wits of the players against the clever stratagems administerd by the GM. You could play those modules well having never read the rulebooks and using nothing but tactical and strategic common sense. 3E, on the other hand, was a game with extremely complex character build rules and frequently complex action resolution rules. It's hard to imagine playing 3E, especially above level 10, without being intimately familiar with its mechanical intricacies.Interestingly, I see this as a virtue. It frees the designers to make mechanically balanced powers, while freeing the players to hang the story that they want to upon the mechanics.As noted above, 4e differs from 3E no more than the latter did from 1st ed AD&amp;D (I never played OD&amp;D, but I gather it was likewise different from AD&amp;D in certain important respects).And the notion the 4e is aimed at some juvenile or non-gamer demographic is pretty bizarre. There is a degree of overlap here with Hong's <a href="http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?p=4280216" target="_blank">casual gamer</a> thread, so I won't bang on about it, but the idea that a game with 400+ pages of power descriptions (including classes, magic items and the monster manual) is not fit for serious gamers is bizarre.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 4280241, member: 42582"] This is true. Of course, the same relationship obtained between 1st ed AD&D and 3E. The former was a game with virtually no character build rules and virtually no action resolution rules, which was at its best in modules like White Plume Mountain, Ghost Tower Of Inverness or Against the Giants which pitted the wits of the players against the clever stratagems administerd by the GM. You could play those modules well having never read the rulebooks and using nothing but tactical and strategic common sense. 3E, on the other hand, was a game with extremely complex character build rules and frequently complex action resolution rules. It's hard to imagine playing 3E, especially above level 10, without being intimately familiar with its mechanical intricacies. Interestingly, I see this as a virtue. It frees the designers to make mechanically balanced powers, while freeing the players to hang the story that they want to upon the mechanics. As noted above, 4e differs from 3E no more than the latter did from 1st ed AD&D (I never played OD&D, but I gather it was likewise different from AD&D in certain important respects). And the notion the 4e is aimed at some juvenile or non-gamer demographic is pretty bizarre. There is a degree of overlap here with Hong's [url=http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?p=4280216]casual gamer[/url] thread, so I won't bang on about it, but the idea that a game with 400+ pages of power descriptions (including classes, magic items and the monster manual) is not fit for serious gamers is bizarre. [/QUOTE]

Verification