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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Kzach" data-source="post: 4861286" data-attributes="member: 56189">*That's sortof what I was trying to get at. It's about 90% of the point I was aiming for but said succinctly and thus with far less waffle <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=":)" />The other 10% was that I was trying to say that 4e is more conducive to a less literal and more free-wheeling play-style than 3rd edition. That isn't to say that you can't have much the same game with the two systems, it's more to say that one system promotes/encourages a certain play-style more than the other and vice versa.IMO, 4e needs players to be more imaginative at the table and less literal with the rules to facilitate a more narrative type of play. And when one does so, it fits that play-style very well.With 3e you could certainly do much the same, but I don't feel it suited that sortof play-style as well as 4e does. 3e IME was always more suited to the more literal and strict gaming style where the rules are well-explained and are meant to be taken exactly as written with no narrative interpretation.And again, neither one is better than the other because of these differences, but I do think they suit different play-styles and for me personally, 4e is the system that I feel more comfortable with at the table and enjoy playing more because of those perceived differences.2e, however, seemed to both suffer and benefit from neither having the well-explained and well-balanced rules but also required you to therefore fill in the gaps with narrative interpretation.I strongly believe that 3e was the result of many years of players like myself trying to fill those gaps with house-rules. I remember the first thing I thought about 3e when it came out was, "OMG! Those are my house-rules!" I often went to (2e) games with new people and half the first session would agreeing on house-rules and remarkably, despite the internet being far less ubiquitous back then, people often had very similar ideas on how to 'fix' things.But IMO, 3e went in one direction without taking into account the other direction. And I see 4e as having see-sawed back towards that direction by trying to strike a balance between narration and rules. And in many ways, I followed the same path that led me to dislike 3e and crave what I felt I had lost in 2e.No play-style is superior to another in an objective sense, but in a subjective sense, systems can fill a particular play-styles needs more effectively than another and so to me, 4e is the bees-knees, whilst to others its anathema.I think people who argue the superiority of one system over another fail to see or recognise this.*Sorry, lost who originally said it and am too lazy to scroll through the thread to re-attribute <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" /></blockquote>

Verification