Quote:
Originally Posted by Burnsaber
I'm kind of sick of people dissing 4th edition right away. It's sort of easy to just read intercepts of the book and instantly hate it (to be honest, I did too).
|
You are welcome to be.
Well, I looked at the 3 ed. I didn't like it (though there were good ideas and things which were past time to implement - including, by the way, advanced class system taken from Warhammer RPG). I was told that it's unreasonable and that I should take part in test-play. I took - and was bored out of my brain. The same for 3.5. How much more tests I need you say? If something looks like a duck, walks like a duck...
Yes, it's videogamish - but that wouldn't probably be a problem if, like you said, it wasn't called D&D. But such a name
should require a continuity within worlds - which are already described in their realties. And this changes completely. If so - why should I play completely different thing? There are many other systems. As for D&D worlds, I, like Chris said, still consider 2nd edition "the One and True".
And as for a simple and dynamic system - there is always Feng Shui RPG, Rune (actually better videogame system than DD$), Forgotten Futures (free, by the way) and many others. While if I want a game within a detailed world (and it's more interesting than an abstract goblin-bashing) the system itself should detail many other things besides combat. And there are many such systems too. Though I won't consider Rolemaster among them - not because it's made needlessly complicated (I played TriTac Bureau 13 - and it was quite good!), but because it managed to be complicated without being actually realistic and - mainly - because it's tried to be universal and never managed a good game world. Middle Earth Roleplaying it started from was better regardless of obvious holes in its rules. By the way, what I like
very much in Dominions is a detailed game world with a number of detailed cultures and their complex interactions.