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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 7874688" data-attributes="member: 18">I mean, let's not re-write history. That was not really much more true for 4E than it was for previous editions, in terms of general rules and how they were presented (I'm not sure it was more true than 3.XE at all). It's not even much more true than 5E (though it is).However I agree re: early official adventures. They were certainly pretty combat-centric even by adventure standards. I also agree that presentation was 4E's great downfall, from the initial "Not ur daddy's D&D!!!" idiocy to the way information was conveyed generally, to the visual design and layout (also issues in 3.XE and 5E, admittedly, but less severe ones).True20/Blue Rose is a system I want to love, but don't. Blue Rose is one of the very few modern RPGs where I actually own the physical book as well as the PDF (including the most recent edition), but I feel like mechanically it is in this really awkward place where the system is a bit more of a "gritty fantasy" game than it wants to be, and it's also somewhat complex mechanically and puts a lot of weight on players to understand the system to build and play their PCs, when I feel like maybe maybe a lighter, more narrative touch was warranted for the subject matter. I strongly suspect that if it was post-Apocalypse World/Dungeon World, they'd have used that as the basis instead of d20, given the choice.*I'd much sooner run some sort of gritty low-fantasy campaign with True20 than I would actual Romantic Fantasy. I'm not very keen on AGE either, despite thinking maybe that would be cool.* = I think what that illustrates though is that a lot of games are just using "the new hotness", rather than the best tool for the job. Not really a criticism, more a fact of life. Tons of AW/DW games might be better off with different systems too.</blockquote>

Verification