Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Argyle King" data-source="post: 8711175" data-attributes="member: 58416">Personally, I disagree. While they're compatible, there are noticeable differences.In a similar way, there are noticeable differences when contrasting 3.5e with 3.5e after the second set of Complete books and Book of 9 Swords. It's less about the options and more about how the approach to and design of options changed the underlying philosophy of the game. It's still the same game and it can all still be used together, but in some ways it's also not still the same game.It's a difficult thing to quantify though because there were also changes in 4E when comparing the first round of books to the second. Why some changes are seen as more-4E or less-4E is hard to easily say, but there is a point at which the game felt different. Whether that's good or bad depends on what you like as a player.To answer the OP: My preference (if I could play whatever I wanted) would be D&amp;D fluff and lore but using non-D&amp;D rules. If required to choose D&amp;D, I would likely choose pre-essentials 4E with a lot of house rules. While 4E may be a game which I had harsh criticism for in the past, I can still recognize the strengths of it; it's just that changes meant to make the game better went what I believe was the wrong direction. I agreed with the designers on&nbsp; pointing out things which were flaws, but strongly disagreed with how those flaws were &quot;fixed.&quot; Some of the best experiences I had with 4E were after I stopped listening to some of the official advice on how to run it.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Argyle King, post: 8711175, member: 58416"] Personally, I disagree. While they're compatible, there are noticeable differences. In a similar way, there are noticeable differences when contrasting 3.5e with 3.5e after the second set of Complete books and Book of 9 Swords. It's less about the options and more about how the approach to and design of options changed the underlying philosophy of the game. It's still the same game and it can all still be used together, but in some ways it's also not still the same game. It's a difficult thing to quantify though because there were also changes in 4E when comparing the first round of books to the second. Why some changes are seen as more-4E or less-4E is hard to easily say, but there is a point at which the game felt different. Whether that's good or bad depends on what you like as a player. To answer the OP: My preference (if I could play whatever I wanted) would be D&D fluff and lore but using non-D&D rules. If required to choose D&D, I would likely choose pre-essentials 4E with a lot of house rules. While 4E may be a game which I had harsh criticism for in the past, I can still recognize the strengths of it; it's just that changes meant to make the game better went what I believe was the wrong direction. I agreed with the designers on pointing out things which were flaws, but strongly disagreed with how those flaws were "fixed." Some of the best experiences I had with 4E were after I stopped listening to some of the official advice on how to run it. [/QUOTE]

Verification