PapaBlue -> RE: Role-Playing Games. There, I Said It. (3/1/2010 11:07:19 AM)
|
quote:
from what I read, 4th ed is like playing WoW. First, I'd rather choke on a toothpick than ever play 2nd edition AD&D, 3.5, 4E, or Pathfinder ever again. [:'(] They aren't bad games if you like what each has to offer, but I don't care for any of them enough to devote anymore time to them. In my opinion, neither 3.5 nor 4E feel like D&D. Yes, they stand on its shoulders and the comparisons are easy (AC, hit points, classes, levels, half elves, etc.), but there are way too many differences, for them to feel like Basic or AD&D (and I never played OD&D). For the AD&D feel with a smoother rule set, I suggest Castles & Crusades or maybe another one of the retro-clones (but I'm not very familiar with any of them). Or, of course, just play AD&D. [:D] I think it is unfair to say that playing 4E (or any tabletop game) is like playing WoW. I do think that 4E has borrowed a kind of mechanics from MMOs (how sly can Sly Flourish be if you do it round after round?), but I think cross pollination is fair and it has certainly been going on between pen and paper RPGS, miniature wargaming, sci-fi/fantasy/horror literature, and computer gaming ever since geeks realized that chocolate and peanut butter tasted great together. 4E may be an abstract simulator of squad tactics in a magical setting (like WoW), but it is also (like all pen & paper games) a rule set that allows for collaborative story telling in a way that MMOs can't even vaguely replicate (yet) and can only barely mimic. I don't think 4E (or anything called D&D) is the best vehicle for collaborative storytelling and expressing goals outside of "kill the monster and take its loot", but it can handle it. MMOs can't. [8|]
|
|
|
|