As long as we are talking hypothetically...

[thecasualoblivion]

What is this supposed to mean?
I fail to see what you are suggesting here. "Look at yourself" for...what? trying to change your taste? shuting up? what?

Stop being so self centered. Think about the possibility that while an edition change could be wrong for you, it could be right for others.

 

[ggroy]

I've done that too. Its still an issue as having to ignore more than half the levels contained in the game kind of shows a problem with the game.

What exactly is exciting about 3.5E campaigns over level 10, which I seem to be missing out on? Are there cooler spells? Cooler weapons? From I remember of the 3E/3.5E core books offhand, many higher level spells and weapons didn't look particularly exciting, other than maybe being on "steroids".

In most of my 3.5E games, the other players didn't have any splatbooks and were not familiar with high level campaigns. Most of them were 1E AD&D grognards who didn't buy any 3E/3.5E books at all.

Another friend "trimmed down" his 3.5E games for over level 10, where he banned all splatbooks (including WotC ones), banned many high level spells, feats, etc ... and banned any and all prestige classes.

 

[xechnao]

Stop being so self centered. Think about the possibility that while an edition change could be wrong for you, it could be right for others.

Yes, but in regards to a shared value people are self centered. It is normal. I mean, if you would like the new edition to be different you would have to say so, you would have to make it clear. Because if you are not going to do it, no one knows what is in your head to do it for you.

 

[AllisterH]

Hopefully I can head this off in the pass but....

"why do we assume that a fighter is weak against magic?"

This wasn't true AT ALL in pre 3e...A buck naked mid to high level fighter in pre 3.x is pretty much laughing off ANY effect that would call for a saving throw and throw in ring/cloak of protection and the only thing that's affecting him is pure damage.

Again, not picking on you personally BryonD, but your argument kind of invalidates all editions prior to 3e as in those editions, high level character by and large, became more and more resistant to saving throw effects in D&D.

I know people seem to hate on 4e for the half-level mechanic since it makes character seem to have no weaknesses but this isn't a new fangled concept IMO to D&D since as noted, character WERE supposed to get more "metal" as they levelled.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Yes, but in regards to a shared value people are self centered. It is normal. I mean, if you would like the new edition to be different you would have to say so, you would have to make it clear. Because if you are not going to do it, no one
knows what is in your head to do it for you.

But why is it necessary to say so? Does it make one feel better to vent? Do you realize that when you vent like this you are denigrating other people and their opinions? You think that the new edition is bad? I like the new edition, does this mean there's something wrong with me because I like it? You may not mean to say that, but it gets said nonetheless. Its being self-centered that leads to this.


Or, on the other hand, are you talking about influencing the next edition by complaining about this one?

While I will admit that this happened to a great extent with the 3.5E to 4E evolution, people miss one massively important point:

The complaints against 3.5E that drove the evolution of 4E were complaints made by WotC customers who were playing 3.5E. They were by and large not complaints made by people who were not playing 3.5E.

I would not be surprised if WotC ignored the edition wars and people leaving D&D altogether, and listened only to people on the 4E/WotC forums saying "I play 4E but it could do X better"

 

[xechnao]

Or, on the other hand, are you talking about influencing the next edition by complaining about this one?

Yes, this is more like it. In the current situation, due to the OGL and Pathfinder people could even try to influence the community towards their preference for the same reason. It is all political. The important thing is that it has to remain civil. I do not see anything beyond that.

I would not be surprised if WotC ignored the edition wars and people leaving D&D altogether, and listened only to people on the 4E/WotC forums saying "I play 4E but it could do X better"

I think what Wotc will do is a matter of scale or numbers. It will do whatever it can to win as big a customer base as possible. Now, of course there are some politics or priorities here too. Will it face the market with mostly short term goals in mind or long term for example.

 

[MichaelSomething]

Well I would never suspect that people want different things from an RPG! What a shocker!

So what are we gonna do?

A. Continue the endless arguements over which side is better?
B. Accept the fact that people have different taste and move on?
C. Have one group leave and play a different RPG?
D. Compromise? Have an RPG that neither group will really like?

 

[thecasualoblivion]

And therefore expect people who approve of the changes in the new edition trying to shout you down at every turn, if thats the way its going to be.

 

[M.L. Martin]

* My saying this has nothing to do with the quality of 4e. It's a reflection of the generational cycle of D&D. We've had two 'peak years', with a decline between them each time. If the cycle holds, we're currently in the declining part of the cycle.

I think the 'cycle' model is problematic because if memory serves, one of those 'peak years'--1982--corresponds with external interest sparked by the James Dallas Egbert case and the media frenzy surrounding the game.

I think the OP's scenario is realistic, even if my fantasy scenario is 4E and Pathfinder tearing each other down enough for Star Wars Saga Edition to arise as the new market leader.

 

[Cadfan]

I don't think you're trying to influence the next edition.