On 8/17/06, Erik Holmes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
4e is just broken and has no flavor/style.
I'd agree that 4e has little flavor of its own, but how is that *more* the case than with 3e? I've always regarded GURPS's long-standing lack of individual flavor as a strength, since it lets me use the same rules set in multiple settings without worrying about something terribly inappropriate. As for "broken," it sounds to me like your real problem was lack of GM control. If I spent my entire point budget on Fencing in a 3e game, I'm sure he'd be a pretty fearsome fighter as well. Yes, it'd probably be skill 19 instead of 22, but that's still badass, particularly considering that Fencing is a better skill in 3e than 4e. And with some optional rules presented in GURPS Myth, that Magery 10 character would be legal in 3e as well. And what's wrong with that? 4e leaves it to the GM to limit advantages and disads as appropriate to the campaign, and for some campaigns, that Magery 10 character is appropriate. I've got my discontents with 4e myself, but those objections strike me as blaming the brushes and paints when you should blame the artist. -- My wife's food blog is quite interesting: http://thehappysorceress.blogspot.com _______________________________________________ GurpsNet-L mailing list <[email protected]> http://mail.sjgames.com/mailman/listinfo/gurpsnet-l
