Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Balesir" data-source="post: 6066922" data-attributes="member: 27160">I do this for each instance of play I run already - a key part of it is selecting which system we will use. The &quot;game I play at my own table&quot; will be what I want it to be - but it won't (necessarily) use D&amp;D (any edition) as its system.People half a country (or more - I'm in the UK so many gamers in the gamer-rich US will count) away will play as they like, and this will not bother me in the slightest. But if I have a game that does what I want for a specific campaign without me having to understand its dials and options so well that I can mould it into a game that does what I want, the &quot;mouldable&quot; game won't get a look in. I have little time and I'm fundamentally lazy/pragmatic by alignment.This is theoretically possible in a &quot;monkeys and typewriters&quot; sense, but (a) I'm not convinced it's their aim and (b) I see no glimmerings of this in the playtest material so far. Sure, there might be a &quot;tactical combat&quot; module and so on, but (as others have said) this misses most of the point. GURPS is already a game that has &quot;tactical combat&quot; options and a plethora of other options, but it very decidedly does not do what 4e does in this respect. The very fact that there are other &quot;optional&quot; systems - or even &quot;core&quot; systems that are overwritten by the &quot;4e lookalike&quot; options - muddies the waters and makes the system less clear and unambiguous.If the &quot;multigame option&quot; is what &quot;D&amp;D fans&quot; want, then I say &quot;let them have it&quot;. I'm not sure exactly how widespread the preference is, but it seems pretty common, and it's what the IP owner has decided to support. If I sound like I'm moaning, it's not because the folks with these preferences will get what they want - I'm genuinely glad for them. I'm just sad that me - and apparently others, too - will not get what we like supported for the time being.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Balesir, post: 6066922, member: 27160"] I do this for each instance of play I run already - a key part of it is selecting which system we will use. The "game I play at my own table" will be what I want it to be - but it won't (necessarily) use D&D (any edition) as its system. People half a country (or more - I'm in the UK so many gamers in the gamer-rich US will count) away will play as they like, and this will not bother me in the slightest. But if I have a game that does what I want for a specific campaign without me having to understand its dials and options so well that I can mould it into a game that does what I want, the "mouldable" game won't get a look in. I have little time and I'm fundamentally lazy/pragmatic by alignment. This is theoretically possible in a "monkeys and typewriters" sense, but (a) I'm not convinced it's their aim and (b) I see no glimmerings of this in the playtest material so far. Sure, there might be a "tactical combat" module and so on, but (as others have said) this misses most of the point. GURPS is already a game that has "tactical combat" options and a plethora of other options, but it very decidedly does not do what 4e does in this respect. The very fact that there are other "optional" systems - or even "core" systems that are overwritten by the "4e lookalike" options - muddies the waters and makes the system less clear and unambiguous. If the "multigame option" is what "D&D fans" want, then I say "let them have it". I'm not sure exactly how widespread the preference is, but it seems pretty common, and it's what the IP owner has decided to support. If I sound like I'm moaning, it's not because the folks with these preferences will get what they want - I'm genuinely glad for them. I'm just sad that me - and apparently others, too - will not get what we like supported for the time being. [/QUOTE]

Verification