Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Orryn Emrys" data-source="post: 4925694" data-attributes="member: 6799">My group actually tried a seven-session 4E run with about 3rd-level characters right when the game came out last summer.&nbsp; It felt like a fair assessment of the game, and we decided that it wasn't for us.&nbsp; Unsurprisingly, most of the reasons mentioned by the OP were central to this decision.&nbsp; (Though, despite regularly playing D&amp;D since the early 80s, I find myself generally unattached to Vancian magic...)I didn't find the game distasteful in any way.&nbsp; In fact, the first thing I did upon switching back to 3.5 was start work on a subsystem that allowed me to use a bevy of cool ideas inspired by 4E (and by Pathfinder, actually... and Arcana Unearthed/Evolved and Iron Heroes and Monte's Experimental Might stuff...).&nbsp; My system is now very popular with my players.The game's &quot;artificial&quot; feel and the intrusive nature of the rules were very central to our struggle with it, as we tend to play in a very organic style that emphasizes in-character interaction with the environment wherein I, as the DM, generally interpret the most effective manner to apply the rules to the challenge involved.&nbsp; It's not &quot;transparency&quot; were looking for, as a growing mastery of the rules can be very rewarding to the players, but we prefer a play style that encourages players to think of their characters' abilities as training and talent to be drawn upon as necessary when dealing with a challenge, rather than a codified system of powers with limited accessibility.I don't know if I explain it very well.&nbsp; Back in the early days of the Edition Wars, I thought I was speaking very eloquently on the matter... but found that some gamers found it very easy to tear apart the wording of my &quot;argument&quot; to make it seem as if I were being judgmental or short-sighted.&nbsp; Suffice it to say that the 4E rules are simply too intrusive for us during play.That being said, I'm actually playing in a 4E game now with some new friends.&nbsp; It's difficult to adjust to, since I don't like the way the player and the system interact, but I like these guys and they love 4E.&nbsp; So I'll play for a while.&nbsp; I like getting together with friends and playing strategy board games and such... it really isn't a whole lot different than that.&nbsp; (Except that, when I talk in character, the other people at the table offer me mostly blank stares in return... I'm hoping that changes after a few sessions.&nbsp; *grins*)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Orryn Emrys, post: 4925694, member: 6799"] My group actually tried a seven-session 4E run with about 3rd-level characters right when the game came out last summer. It felt like a fair assessment of the game, and we decided that it wasn't for us. Unsurprisingly, most of the reasons mentioned by the OP were central to this decision. (Though, despite regularly playing D&D since the early 80s, I find myself generally unattached to Vancian magic...) I didn't find the game distasteful in any way. In fact, the first thing I did upon switching back to 3.5 was start work on a subsystem that allowed me to use a bevy of cool ideas inspired by 4E (and by Pathfinder, actually... and Arcana Unearthed/Evolved and Iron Heroes and Monte's Experimental Might stuff...). My system is now very popular with my players. The game's "artificial" feel and the intrusive nature of the rules were very central to our struggle with it, as we tend to play in a very organic style that emphasizes in-character interaction with the environment wherein I, as the DM, generally interpret the most effective manner to apply the rules to the challenge involved. It's not "transparency" were looking for, as a growing mastery of the rules can be very rewarding to the players, but we prefer a play style that encourages players to think of their characters' abilities as training and talent to be drawn upon as necessary when dealing with a challenge, rather than a codified system of powers with limited accessibility. I don't know if I explain it very well. Back in the early days of the Edition Wars, I thought I was speaking very eloquently on the matter... but found that some gamers found it very easy to tear apart the wording of my "argument" to make it seem as if I were being judgmental or short-sighted. Suffice it to say that the 4E rules are simply too intrusive for us during play. That being said, I'm actually playing in a 4E game now with some new friends. It's difficult to adjust to, since I don't like the way the player and the system interact, but I like these guys and they love 4E. So I'll play for a while. I like getting together with friends and playing strategy board games and such... it really isn't a whole lot different than that. (Except that, when I talk in character, the other people at the table offer me mostly blank stares in return... I'm hoping that changes after a few sessions. *grins*) [/QUOTE]

Verification