Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Darrell" data-source="post: 4640551" data-attributes="member: 680">Well, not quite that simple, but pretty close.&nbsp; The things you're listing as limitations, we tend to see as features.&nbsp; We played exactly one game of 3e before abandoning the concept of attacks of opportunity; my spellcasting players almost never used critter-summoning spells; and skills and feats, multiple buffs, and the like were a major sticking point, and tended to be ignored.&nbsp; Monopoly is better than Go (WTH is &quot;Go,&quot; BTW?) if you're wanting to play Monopoly (which, by the way, we also speed up when we play it).That would depend on your gaming group and the kind of game they like.I run the kind of game my players want to play.&nbsp; If I tried to run a combat-heavy, summoning/buffs/multi-attack/feats/AOO-heavy game, they'd either bolt for the door or we'd end up watching a movie when they lost interest.In that light, simpler and faster combat is better.For my part, I don't want to run a flip-a-coin, 'heads you win, tails you lose' kind of combat (though several of my players would probably love it that way), but neither do I want combat so ultra-detailed that my players would rather drag out Monopoly or a DVD.&nbsp; B/X D&amp;D combat is simple and fast enough to keep them happy, but has just enough variables to keep me happy.&nbsp; If I were running another type of group, 3e or 4e might be better, but then, 3e is (for me, at least) a bit too complex, and my limited 4e experience was, at best, unsatisfying (again due to complexity issues).When you take such group dynamics into consideration, it's not just a case of one being different.&nbsp; For us, one choice is better.&nbsp; YMM (and apparently does) V.Regards,Darrell</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Darrell, post: 4640551, member: 680"] Well, not [I]quite[/I] that simple, but pretty close. The things you're listing as limitations, we tend to see as features. We played exactly one game of 3e before abandoning the concept of attacks of opportunity; my spellcasting players almost never used critter-summoning spells; and skills and feats, multiple buffs, and the like were a major sticking point, and tended to be ignored. Monopoly is better than Go (WTH is "Go," BTW?) if you're wanting to play Monopoly (which, by the way, we also speed up when we play it). That would depend on your gaming group and the kind of game they like. I run the kind of game my players want to play. If I tried to run a combat-heavy, summoning/buffs/multi-attack/feats/AOO-heavy game, they'd either bolt for the door or we'd end up watching a movie when they lost interest. In that light, simpler and faster combat [I]is[/I] better. For my part, I don't want to run a flip-a-coin, 'heads you win, tails you lose' kind of combat (though several of my players would probably love it that way), but neither do I want combat so ultra-detailed that my players would [I]rather[/I] drag out Monopoly or a DVD. B/X D&D combat is simple and fast enough to keep them happy, but has just enough variables to keep me happy. If I were running another type of group, 3e or 4e might be better, but then, 3e is (for me, at least) a bit too complex, and my limited 4e experience was, at best, unsatisfying (again due to complexity issues). When you take such group dynamics into consideration, it's not just a case of one being different. For us, one choice is better. YMM (and apparently does) V. Regards, Darrell [/QUOTE]

Verification