Would you be interested in a 3e / 4e hybrid (evolution)?

[smetzger]

eh, what you described would not be what I would be interested in.
I have no interest in FR so whatever on that front.

As for 3.x, I'd like to see a fix to some higher level combat (so it moves quicker), a fix to the christmas tree, and the layered buffs. Not sure how it could be done so I like it.

 

[jdrakeh]

I have no interest in such a thing, but I also think that such a thing would further fracture a fan-base already characterized by in-fighting. Which can only be bad.

 

[Wiseblood]

I voted the most overwhelmingly negative selection that I could. I would be sickened and disappointed if wotc tried to backpedal. I won't buy a product that I could create. Move foreward please. Innovate don't regurgitate.

 

[Aus_Snow]

Suggestion:

Next time, select the poll type that records usernames. Otherwise... yeah.

I mean, even then you have to count up the names, thereby filtering the inevitable flooding. But still.

These forums are extremely unusual in that anyone, logged in or not, can vote on any poll. Yes, even that other kind. And yes, they can log out again, vote again. Rinse, repeat.

Where oh where is that rolleyes smiley...


edit: Oh, and when you refer to "the best of both editions", you'd not be too surprised at the possibly violent disagreements that would arise, should such a thing be desired to be agreed upon?

 

[Glade Riven]

They did. It was called Star Wars SAGA, and it was good. Actually, I'd like to see SAGA rules adapted into a new version of D20 Modern/Future rather than adapted into D&D.

The problem has been stated - what elements are the best, and would mesh together successfully? Everyone probably has a different answer.

 

[olshanski]

On the first point:
I don't care in the least about the FR setting. I don't know whether your ideas are good or bad in this respect, but I assure you that I automatically ignore any product with "Forgotten Realms" in the title or writeup.

On the second point:
My main gripe with 3.5, Pathfinder, and 4E is that each of them are tolerable at the bare minimum core book, but that the many supplements bloated the products too much for my taste. It sounds like you are suggesting grabbing a bunch of rules from multiple editions, which doesn't solve rules bloat at all.

Finally, the meta "taint" you are talking about with characters changing from one ruleset to the other sounds like it has nothing to do with roleplaying, it is just an application of rules. I don't care about rules and when I am playing I want the rules to be unobtrusive. You are elevating the rules to be an actual part of the character. Yech!

 

[gamerprinter]

I'm not sure if you were referring to my line about 5th edition needing to be a "faster, leaner, less rule-intensive game that makes entry into the hobby far easier than 3rd or 4th edition made it."

If so I don't mean make the game simple. I mean don't have rules for every possible eventuality. Allow the players the chance to think outside of the box and not always rely on (or need) specific skills, feats and/or powers to handle each and every task.

Elegantly simple rules challenge the players and DM to be creative and come up with solutions to problems without resorting to a simple die roll, and provide helpful guidelines to get peoples' creative juices flowing.

Simpler rules do not equate to a simpler game.

I am not defending 1st edition - read, a game I don't want to play anymore, but the game was never more complicated and fiddly as 1e: THAC0, different progression tables for every class, etc. The game was never more popular as it was 30 years ago, and the game 30 years ago was much more complicated.

Now the game makes more sense, is simpler than its predecessor, and rightly or wrongly less popular than it ever was.

If one can agree the above is true, what makes you think being more streamlined will be an improvement. The fewer gamers in the world can enjoy a more streamlined game that has less and less participants. Such that in the end, the game will be perfect for the single player left.

The game has only become less complex, and less popular - is this a direction we want to go?

GP

 

[jdrakeh]

I am not defending 1st edition - read, a game I don't want to play anymore, but the game was never more complicated and fiddly as 1e: THAC0, different progression tables for every class, etc. The game was never more popular as it was 30 years ago, and the game 30 years ago was much more complicated.

As somebody who plays AD&D 1e almost exclusively (I also play a little OD&D), I couldn't disagree more. In fact, the specific reason that I choose to play 1e is because it's less complicated than D&D 3x or D&D 4e. I also know that I'm not alone here. Now, I'm not going to say that 1e is more unified than recent editions of D&D. It isn't. But being less unified doesn't necessarily make something more complicated.

 

[Dungeoneer]

I'm trying, and failing, to think of any part of 3.x I would want to add to 4e, or any piece of 4e that I would want to disfigure by grafting old pieces of 3e onto it.

I can see how 3.x fans might want to update their edition with bits from 4e, but if you're a fan of 4e as it exists today I think the appeal of adding parts of a previous edition to it is low. Not to say 4e is perfect, but none of its flaws would be fixed by adding CR back in.

 

[Aus_Snow]

I'm trying, and failing, to think of any part of 3.x I would want to add to 4e, or any piece of 4e that I would want to disfigure by grafting old pieces of 3e onto it.

I can see how 3.x fans might want to update their edition with bits from 4e, but if you're a fan of 4e as it exists today I think the appeal of adding parts of a previous edition to it is low. Not to say 4e is perfect, but none of its flaws would be fixed by adding CR back in.

Such alarming honesty wrt a stupendous bias such as this, is... refreshing, I guess.

Different, anyway.