Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mercurius" data-source="post: 6241305" data-attributes="member: 59082">True. I guess I was thread-jacking as I wasn't as much talking about balance as re-convening the &quot;immersion conversation,&quot; which probably better belongs in <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?350563-Phases-of-systems-mastery-Novice-Apprentice-Journeyman-and-Master" target="_blank">this thread.</a>Any regular poster on EN World is already a &quot;serious&quot; gamer; the 5K+ post counts imply &quot;hardcore&quot; to some degree. But I do think you bring up an interesting point - that your seriousness about the game facilitates your style of play. Try to imagine being pretty casual and &quot;just showing up&quot; for a 4E game, or being serious but not hardcore and wanting to run a game, but not necessarily having the time or energy or interest to know every knook and cranny of the rules. This pretty much describes my group: a group of casual players and a &quot;serious plus&quot; DM (me). It could simply be a matter of time and laziness on my part. I've always learned D&amp;D through playing it. Yeah, I read a few pages of the basic game, but I've never ready a rule book from start to finish and have always felt that the first half a dozen sessions of a new edition or game are kind of like &quot;spring training&quot; - they're learning the rules. But this returns me to the main &quot;problem&quot; with 4E - it isn't that it is a bad game or not fun or cannot truly fly, but that it is harder to get to that point--of really &quot;flying&quot;--than in previous editions. See my other thread.Again, see the other thread for further discussion of this. Consider it a &quot;working hypothesis.&quot;Definitely agree. But again, later editions - 3E, but especially 4E - emphasized this further, mainly through the need for a battlemat but also the AEDU paradigm.Weren't non-weapon proficiencies part of 2E from the beginning? I&nbsp; thought they were introduced in 1E in Unearthed Arcana (or was it Greyhawk Adventures?) and then incorporated into the core of 2E.I agree that its not innate, but again, I think it is easier to attain deeper immersion--what we could call &quot;player-character fusion&quot; in which the player inhabits, so to speak, their character in theater of mind--outside than within combat in 4E, which is why I say that it is basically the same as in other editions, or at least closer to them, outside of combat.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mercurius, post: 6241305, member: 59082"] True. I guess I was thread-jacking as I wasn't as much talking about balance as re-convening the "immersion conversation," which probably better belongs in [URL="http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?350563-Phases-of-systems-mastery-Novice-Apprentice-Journeyman-and-Master"]this thread.[/URL] Any regular poster on EN World is already a "serious" gamer; the 5K+ post counts imply "hardcore" to some degree. But I do think you bring up an interesting point - that your seriousness about the game facilitates your style of play. Try to imagine being pretty casual and "just showing up" for a 4E game, or being serious but not hardcore and wanting to run a game, but not necessarily having the time or energy or interest to know every knook and cranny of the rules. This pretty much describes my group: a group of casual players and a "serious plus" DM (me). It could simply be a matter of time and laziness on my part. I've always learned D&D through playing it. Yeah, I read a few pages of the basic game, but I've never ready a rule book from start to finish and have always felt that the first half a dozen sessions of a new edition or game are kind of like "spring training" - they're learning the rules. But this returns me to the main "problem" with 4E - it isn't that it is a bad game or not fun or cannot truly fly, but that it is harder to get to that point--of really "flying"--than in previous editions. See my other thread. Again, see the other thread for further discussion of this. Consider it a "working hypothesis." Definitely agree. But again, later editions - 3E, but especially 4E - emphasized this further, mainly through the need for a battlemat but also the AEDU paradigm. Weren't non-weapon proficiencies part of 2E from the beginning? I thought they were introduced in 1E in Unearthed Arcana (or was it [I]Greyhawk Adventures?) [/I]and then incorporated into the core of 2E. I agree that its not innate, but again, I think it is easier to attain deeper immersion--what we could call "player-character fusion" in which the player inhabits, so to speak, their character in theater of mind--outside than within combat in 4E, which is why I say that it is basically the same as in other editions, or at least closer to them, outside of combat. [/QUOTE]

Verification