Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 7799801" data-attributes="member: 82106">Right, now IMHO, 4e is a lot closer to FATE than 5e is in this respect. That is, I believe, what Garthanos and others were saying, at least partially (I know, it was a few days back, sorry). 4e has SCs, which ARE a very generalized and open-ended, but structured, resolution system. It has a system of 'points' which act as a resource, although it is fair to note that 4e doesn't REALLY clearly spell out the fungibility of HS. In fact, again IMHO, 4e's sin is not in lacking an excellent capability to support free-form play with a solid 'story game' type of approach. It is that it simply was written in a style where the authors were either too shy to really put it forward in clear terms, or actually didn't put all the pieces together until AFTER the core books were published (DMG 1 particularly of course). DMG2 definitely seems to cautiously lean in the 'right' direction, but it was definitely too timid. I assume that WotC feared re-interpreting their own system in mid-stream and chose to leave a lot of the implications of 4e's mechanics latent. The problem is, in the final analysis, much of the audience wasn't familiar enough with more cutting-edge (or just non-D&D) RPGs to catch on. Thus they tried to play 4e as if it was just a slight variation of 3e, and found it very difficult to actually use the rules to best advantage.</blockquote>