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

[Dausuul]

"It's somewhat MMO terminology."

Ah, that explains it right there. Thanks!

I only just started playing Guild Wars a couple weeks ago, having given up on CRPGs well over a decade ago. The mass of jargon is bewildering. It's what happens when an old fart tries to play with new toys. Culture shock!

The bleed between MMO terminology and RPGs is... interesting. On the one hand, MMOs have come up with a lot of useful shorthand for various mechanics. On the other hand, hearing a player refer to his character as a "toon" has me reaching for the Smite button.

 

[Dice4Hire]

The bleed between MMO terminology and RPGs is... interesting. On the one hand, MMOs have come up with a lot of useful shorthand for various mechanics. On the other hand, hearing a player refer to his character as a "toon" has me reaching for the Smite button.

Yeah, I want to do that also, on occasion. Sometimes the terminology is just gamist to the extreme.

 

[TerraDave]

So it is just a few of us.

There is the "like it in theory, but when you fill in the details, I don't like it" problem. I mean, no offense, but I when see something on FR in the start of the OP, my interest pretty much dies right there.

There is the "not another damm edition" problem. This has been expressed quite a bit here.

There is the "we have been edition warring for so long, we can't surrender now" problem, also well represented here.

Of course, people say one thing...Essentials is already a stab at this, and its seems pretty successfull. Mike Mearls has stongly implied that he is keeping fans of older editions in mind as he goes forward. If we get to a book based 5E, there is no doubt it will pay homage to all sorts of things from past editions.

Finally, you can do this under the OGL right now. (honestly, given how much FRPGing is already in the public domain, you could do it without the OGL). And I expect to see it done.

 

[KahnyaGnorc]

I don't know what you mean by "auto attacks". I have played or read all previous editions to 4E. Is this something in 4E and if not, why do you have it in quotes?

Yeah, sorry, I play MMOs, so I often use its terminology without realizing those I am communicating with may not understand them. As others have pointed out, it is just when the best, and often the only, attack to take is just "I attack."

Just because you don't understand how someone else can appreciate different aspects of a game, you seem to think NO ONE should have access to those aspects of the game. You seem to enjoy the game you are playing, but don't deny others the game they enjoy just because you personally don't. The term "badwrongfun" springs to mind.

I did not even KNOW people preferred those mechanics. Since 4e changed so much from previous editions (many of which seem to be solely for the sake of change), it is difficult to know which aspects of 3.x people prefer over 4e.

The way I see it, there are 3 ways to make a hybrid version of sorts: (1) add 4e elements to a 3.x core, (2) add 3.x elements to a 4e core, or (3) make a whole new system with elements from both. I just suggested number 2, as it seems to me to be the most likely route WotC would take if they did something like this. Yes, it is a route that I would like. Number 3 would essentially be 5e and is rife with the most ptifalls. It could be awesome; it could crash and burn. Likely, it will do both. I would like to see a number 1, as that would be interesting (and likely fun to play).

I wasn't trying to impose a "my way or the highway" viewpoint with my comments, which appears to be the way you read them. If there was a way to put out 3.x and 4e mechanics out like in a cafeteria and allow DMs to pick and choose them, however they want, to craft their games, that would be great. I don't think there is, without a LOT of work (basically, making the number 3 above).