Quote:
Originally Posted by sturmkraehe
The problem is not that others have made the same observations...the problem is that others have made the same observation while only making a cursory reading of the game. How can you review a game that you haven't played??? It's like reviewing a movie based on the previews.
|
Capsule reviews are quite common on RPGnet. While I prefer those with playtesting, an experienced gm / player can generally form an opinion on how something plays after reading it. This might not be true for games that don't follow the "classic" mould, but otherwise it is not too hard.
If the game is a crunchy nightmare, you will see that after one readthrough, etc. .
Quote:
Originally Posted by sturmkraehe
We can agree to disagree about the earlier versions of the game being combat-centric. I find it ironic that people think earlier D&D was not combat-centric when the characters that the players played were defined primarily by their combat skills. How can you say a game isn't combat-centric when one of it's three primary classes (from 1st edition all the way to now) is called a "fighter?" The first four years of D&D for me were pretty much defined by the game's battles first and by non-combat encounters second. We got into very detailed roleplay after that with very little battle but it didn't last long. 3.0 and 3.5 even used the return to dungeon delving and battles as a selling point.
|
We played AD&D without frequent combats. Additionally the more a system concentrates on a certain aspect (like combat powers), the higher the probability gets, that this influences play.