the problem is, the core rules of 4e offer less to support those styles, even for experienced and knowledgeable Gms, while the 3e rules, whether the DMG offered such advice, offered a system that could, mechanically, handle RP-driven games, and various gaming styles.
If you ever manage to come up with a proof for that, I'll start taking you seriously, Mr. 4e fanboi.
D&D 4E Herald and M:tG Rules Advisor I expect posters to follow the Code of Conduct, use Basic Etiquette, and avoid Poor Logic. If you don't follow these guidelines, I consider you to be disrespectful to everyone on these forums. If you respond to me without following these guidelines, I consider it a personal attack. I grew up in a bilingual household, which means I am familiar with the difficulties in adopting a different vocabulary and grammar. That doesn't bother me. Persistent use of bad capitalization, affirming the consequent, and flaming bother me a great deal.
204.1b Some effects change an object’s card type, supertype, or subtype but specify that the object retains a prior card type, supertype, or subtype. In such cases, all the object’s prior card types, supertypes, and subtypes are retained. This rule applies to effects that use the phrase “in addition to its types” or that state that something is “still a [card type].” Some effects state that an object becomes an “artifact creature”; these effects also allow the object to retain all of its prior card types and subtypes.
"Eight Edition Rules Update" We eventually decided not to change this template, because players are used to “becomes an artifact creature,” and like it much better.
Players were used to Combat on the Stack, but you got rid of that because it was unintuitive. The only phrase needed is "in addition to its types"; the others are misleading and unintuitive.
...but the problem is, the core rules of 4e offer less to support those styles, even for experienced and knowledgeable Gms...
This is absolutely you speaking for yourself. I hate to be that way, but seriously...you keep making these broad, unsubstantiated claims that you (and a very vocal minority) seem to be the only one having an issue with. Please...please, pretty please...stop speaking for everyone else. 4E is not my favorite edition, either, but I can't, in good conscience, make those kind of unfounded claims against it. I can make 4E play however I want it to, regardless of "style".
I disagree, Hocus. Yes, I do speak for myself, but I believe it's an accepted truth that 3e had more rules than 4e. In fact, many 4e defenders prefer it this way. So, as I said, 4e has less rules to support those styles of play - it has less rules, in general.
I disagree, Hocus. Yes, I do speak for myself, but I believe it's an accepted truth that 3e had more rules than 4e. In fact, many 4e defenders prefer it this way. So, as I said, 4e has less rules to support those styles of play - it has less rules, in general.
Alice has five apples. Alice has one orange.
Bob came and took a few fruits.
Now Alice has two apples, and one orange. Fewer fruits, but the same number of oranges.
Less of one thing does not mean less of a sub-type.
D&D 4E Herald and M:tG Rules Advisor I expect posters to follow the Code of Conduct, use Basic Etiquette, and avoid Poor Logic. If you don't follow these guidelines, I consider you to be disrespectful to everyone on these forums. If you respond to me without following these guidelines, I consider it a personal attack. I grew up in a bilingual household, which means I am familiar with the difficulties in adopting a different vocabulary and grammar. That doesn't bother me. Persistent use of bad capitalization, affirming the consequent, and flaming bother me a great deal.
204.1b Some effects change an object’s card type, supertype, or subtype but specify that the object retains a prior card type, supertype, or subtype. In such cases, all the object’s prior card types, supertypes, and subtypes are retained. This rule applies to effects that use the phrase “in addition to its types” or that state that something is “still a [card type].” Some effects state that an object becomes an “artifact creature”; these effects also allow the object to retain all of its prior card types and subtypes.
"Eight Edition Rules Update" We eventually decided not to change this template, because players are used to “becomes an artifact creature,” and like it much better.
Players were used to Combat on the Stack, but you got rid of that because it was unintuitive. The only phrase needed is "in addition to its types"; the others are misleading and unintuitive.
I disagree, Hocus. Yes, I do speak for myself, but I believe it's an accepted truth that 3e had more rules than 4e. In fact, many 4e defenders prefer it this way. So, as I said, 4e has less rules to support those styles of play - it has less rules, in general.
So...your argument is less rules = less ability to use your imagination? I see now.
How about stuff like "Augment Familiar", "Cloak of Bravery", "Cursed Blade" and so forth?
The fact is that we're not even using the 'Complete' books, because they contain odd subsystems (Tactical Feats? A nice idea, but a bit messy in execution) and a lot of broken or just, well, "bad" ideas. There's a lot of good in them as well, but after a few arguments we decided that it's better for everyone in the group if we simply ignore the books. And let's not talk about balance at all...
Speaking of subsystems, it's here that 4E's "modularity" outshines the numerous subsystems of 3E... every new aspect (at least so far) could be linked to the existing mechanics without creating odd, new mechanics for it. I mean, Hauntings as 'hazards'? Summoning linked to the Powers, without breaking the format? And so on. I just have to admire this, because the base format for powers, and the use of keywords reminds me a of a bibliographic record, and we librarians *love* classifying stuff (I wonder if they used a librarian in analyzing and categorizing the relevant aspects of the powers?).
If you still have the book (I assume WotC's ninjas haven't gotten to your house yet), you can read it and post the page number.
I'm sorry that 4e isn't as good as all of 3e combined, but at least you can't break the game at level 1.
The next time I crack open my 3E library I'll make notes. I don't always have every book I own with me at all times. In general though, I feel that (for lack of better words) the "physics engine" of 3E created a more believable world than what the comparable rules for 4E do. Does that mean I feel 3E was a perfect game? Heck no; there are plenty of things which 3E didn't do very well, but I do think that it attempted to have a more broad appeal.
Well, you actually can do that (break the game at level 1) with 4E too, but that's a different topic.
I'm not saying that 4E is terrible. 4E does a lot of things very well, and I even agree that 4E does many things that 3E couldn't do very well. One of the things which I like about 4E is that there is less of a power curve between levels, and that's not the only thing. I also like the new cosmology among other things.
I just feel that 4E covers less of the bases that I like to be covered. Again, that's not to say that 4E is bad or somehow wrong; it just doesn't appeal to me as much as some other games do. Also, again, I've never said that WoTC *should* change the product; I just wish that the current product had turned out differently than it did in some respects. I still play 4E with my friends, and we still have fun, but, at the same time, I notice myself spending more money on alternative rpg games than I do on 4E. That doesn't mean 4E is a bad system; it just doesn't handle some of the things I want to be able to do with a rpg system as well as I would like it to.
I'm both orderly and selfish. I act mostly for my own benefit, but I respect and help my community - Specially when it helps me. At best, I'm loyal and dedicated; at worst, I'm elitist and shrewd.
Well, you actually can do that (break the game at level 1) with 4E too, but that's a different topic.
Actually, I would love to see an example of how you can break 4E using only core mechanics (no house-rules/utilizing errata) at level one. I have seen a few misinformed ideas, but all were shot down. If you know of one, by all means, let us know so we can take measures to avoid it.
The next time I crack open my 3E library I'll make notes. I don't always have every book I own with me at all times. In general though, I feel that (for lack of better words) the "physics engine" of 3E created a more believable world than what the comparable rules for 4E do. Does that mean I feel 3E was a perfect game? Heck no; there are plenty of things which 3E didn't do very well, but I do think that it attempted to have a more broad appeal.
Well, you actually can do that (break the game at level 1) with 4E too, but that's a different topic.
I'm not saying that 4E is terrible. 4E does a lot of things very well, and I even agree that 4E does many things that 3E couldn't do very well. One of the things which I like about 4E is that there is less of a power curve between levels, and that's not the only thing. I also like the new cosmology among other things.
I just feel that 4E covers less of the bases that I like to be covered. Again, that's not to say that 4E is bad or somehow wrong; it just doesn't appeal to me as much as some other games do. Also, again, I've never said that WoTC *should* change the product; I just wish that the current product had turned out differently than it did in some respects. I still play 4E with my friends, and we still have fun, but, at the same time, I notice myself spending more money on alternative rpg games than I do on 4E. That doesn't mean 4E is a bad system; it just doesn't handle some of the things I want to be able to do with a rpg system as well as I would like it to.
Other than posts by Warweaver this has been one of the best anti 4e posts out there. It sucks that its not what you want in a game, I hope you find something else that is to your taste.
Personally I like that its not a realistic game for me at least realism kills the fantasy, but I understand that some people have different tastes, not every game is going to be to everyones tastes.
The fact is that we're not even using the 'Complete' books, because they contain odd subsystems (Tactical Feats? A nice idea, but a bit messy in execution) and a lot of broken or just, well, "bad" ideas. There's a lot of good in them as well, but after a few arguments we decided that it's better for everyone in the group if we simply ignore the books. And let's not talk about balance at all...
Speaking of subsystems, it's here that 4E's "modularity" outshines the numerous subsystems of 3E... every new aspect (at least so far) could be linked to the existing mechanics without creating odd, new mechanics for it. I mean, Hauntings as 'hazards'? Summoning linked to the Powers, without breaking the format? And so on. I just have to admire this, because the base format for powers, and the use of keywords reminds me a of a bibliographic record, and we librarians *love* classifying stuff (I wonder if they used a librarian in analyzing and categorizing the relevant aspects of the powers?).
Lol A good friend of mine is a librarian & said something very similer about "we librarians *love* classifying stuff" I thought she was joking
