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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="apoptosis" data-source="post: 4022168" data-attributes="member: 3226">I think it depends. If you want D&D to be a more general Fantasy game, then yes it is a bad thing as it preassumes that combat is what is important and take choices away from players who dont want the game to be dominated by combat, or do not want all combats to basically follow the same paradigm.I think this is where Reynard comes from.I think where I disagree with Reynard is that D&D is really not the best choice for a general fantasy RPG (if such a thing exists, maybe Rolemaster).For me I wouldnt play 4E (from what I know of it) unless I wanted to run a dungeoncrawl, but I think the game would be very well-suited to some of the old modules as it will allow the player to incorporate many rules and situations to mechanically deal with challenges that earlier editions somewhat handwaved away. It willl do a good job of simulating a high-end version of the heroic journey but for all classes (not just the spellcasters)But D&D is really a game about overcoming challenges (far and away mostly combat challenges) and growing more powerful.D&D was never really good (and 4E will be probably be worse) at being a generic Fantasy Toolbox (frankly i think the generic Fantasy Toolbox is a bad idea, it usually ends up doing everything mediocre)I do understand where Reynard is coming from, I don't think that the end result of 4E will be what he is looking for in a game.In some sense replicating earlier editions with minor tweaks (which it seems what Reynard wants) is somewhat pointless, as those games exist already.But i definitely understand his frustration. I just dont think he will get the results he is looking for from 4E.</blockquote>

Verification