Thursday, July 17, 2008

Old vs New Finisher

Short post today.

Continuing the Old vs New thing, I just have a hard time believing that people can be so defensive about their sacred cows. Aren't the changes necessary? Isn't there some sort of reason as to why they would have added/removed/altered content within the game itself?

Fourth edition of DND obviously favors the player - they are harder to kill, can alter their own fate with Action Points, and have a powerful cache of abilities to utilize to make the fight go their way. Third edition put everyone on even footing and insisted upon the DM to send tough but beatable fights your way, so you wouldn't dump time and effort into a story and campaign setting and preparation just to have your party get killed. If DMs were particularly sadistic or just sucked at math, this whole equation got thrown out of whack.

And Second Edition was even worse.

But this isn't even for just DND. New edition of Warhammer has brought out slews of naysayers all calling bullshit on the entire edition due to changes they made to make the game simpler and more fun.

If rules get in the way of the game being enjoyable and fair, they get changed. If you don't like the changes, play a different game.

Gritty realistic fantasy warfare is what Warhammer RPG does really well. Realistic anything is what Savage Worlds does.

No comments:

Post a Comment