Another argument for 3.5 that makes no sense
by, 04-02-2009 at 12:38 PM (1113 Views)
So last night during the big hoorah, somebody mentioned if want a quick and dirty game you play 4e, but if you want in-depth role-playing you play 3.5.
First off, are they trying to say simple is bad and complex is better?? I guess if you like a challenge, but why over complexify things? I say stick with the KISS method.
Second, how does 3.5 have any more "in-depth" roleplaying than 4e. The role-playing aspect of any game is up to the players and the DM.
There is some mechanics in the RP aspect of the game, but I don't see how they are different between the two different systems. I don't see how 3.5 is this deep misunderstood genius and 4e is a shallow doofus (with respect to its RP features).
Explain this one to me, I really mean it. How does 3.5 have better "role-playing" than 4e? Why is a more complex system better? Why don't people have the gaul/creativity to push past what is in the books, and make the game the way they want it to be?
Even if (and that's a big if) 3.5 does have better RP, why not integrate that into the nice clean balanced mechanics of 4e?
People piss me off.