Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9346322" data-attributes="member: 6790260">All I can say is, that's what the designers explicitly told us they were doing. &quot;3e rules with 4e streamlining&quot; was, in fact, a verbatim (or nearly so) phrase used by 5e's designers.They absolutely intended 5e to be aping 3e rules extensively.I think the big problem--again, as said above--is that what you valued of 3e rules is not in the extensively mirrored or even nearly-directly-copied 3e rules. What you valued was the philosophical implications of 3e rules elements. I'm not sure those philosophical implications were ever actually intended by 3e, and as a result, future iterations of those rules fall short of it because the designers aren't thinking of it.I guess what I'm saying is, 4e was very purposefully designed to be exactly what it was intended to be. Its presentation was admittedly poor (or worse), but it did very effectively the things it set out to do. With 3e, I think a significant portion of what the hardcore simulationists (like yourself) desired from it...was never actually the intent or point of the rules. They accidentally stumbled into doing things like that. And that's why that's quite hard to find anywhere else now. (Well, I also think there are other reasons why it's quite hard to find anywhere else, but this digression has already run long.)3e's designers wanted &quot;2e but with modern rules.&quot; They stumbled into making something radically different from that in...well, nearly every way. 4e's designers wanted more or less exactly what the rules of 4e produced. That's a huge difference.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 9346322, member: 6790260"] All I can say is, that's what the designers explicitly told us they were doing. "3e rules with 4e streamlining" was, in fact, a verbatim (or nearly so) phrase used by 5e's designers. They absolutely [I]intended[/I] 5e to be aping 3e rules extensively. I think the big problem--again, as said above--is that what [B]you valued[/B] of 3e rules is not in the extensively mirrored or even nearly-directly-copied 3e rules. What you valued was the [I]philosophical implications[/I] of 3e rules elements. I'm not sure those philosophical implications were ever actually intended by 3e, and as a result, future iterations of those rules fall short of it because the designers aren't thinking of it. I guess what I'm saying is, 4e was very purposefully designed to be exactly what it was intended to be. Its presentation was admittedly poor (or worse), but it did very effectively the things it set out to do. With 3e, I think a significant portion of what the hardcore simulationists (like yourself) desired from it...was never actually the intent or point of the rules. They [I]accidentally[/I] stumbled into doing things like that. And that's why that's quite hard to find anywhere else now. (Well, I also think there are other reasons why it's quite hard to find anywhere else, but this digression has already run long.) 3e's designers [I]wanted[/I] "2e but with modern rules." They stumbled into making something [I]radically[/I] different from that in...well, nearly every way. 4e's designers wanted more or less exactly what the rules of 4e produced. That's a huge difference. [/QUOTE]

Verification