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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mark Hope" data-source="post: 4039243" data-attributes="member: 27051">There's a difference, but whether it's a big difference depends on your perspective.  If you're a new GM then it makes a whole load of difference (and, as one of 4e's stated goals is to attract new players, then making the rules more accessible out of the gate is very important.)  But if you're not new to D&D (or, specifially, 3e) and have followed the growth of the edition, then your learning curve may well have allowed you to absorb its development at a reasonable rate.  Knowing which rules you want to keep for whatever game you are running is an easy decision to make.  Sometime I scale the complexity up, sometimes down.  So from my perspective, there is almost no difference at all between the two scenarios you mention.It's entirely a matter of preference and taste, of course.  I wouldn't dream of introducing a new player to late-edition 3e, with all its bells and whistles, hell no!  But then, that's not a concern of mine.  I'm very happy with the edition.  Yes, it has incredible complexities, but they are easy to discard and the game does not suffer as a result, imho.  For new gamers, 4e may well be a better choice.  More power to them.  I'm not a 4e hater at all, as you may be able to tell (and if not, I'm not writing as clearly as I should) - I'm just a gamer who has found a system flexible enough to suit his needs:  3.5 alive <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />.</blockquote>

Verification