Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Herremann the Wise" data-source="post: 4472263" data-attributes="member: 11300">I first started playing with my current group during 2nd Ed. I played Red Box and AD&amp;D at school with a different group.For us, 2nd to 3rd was something everyone was willing to give a go - no issues at all. We pretty quickly changed all ongoing campaigns over to 3rd. The change was I think welcome.3rd to 3.5 was a slightly more gradual change as the books came out (although there was this weird period where we were 3.5 but some of our stuff was 3E waiting for the supplements to catch up).3.5 to 4E was stuttered. The need to change was not that great. As I posted in another thread: In my group, there were three guys out of eight who were adamant against doing anything with 4E.- One is still trying to get his head around 3E and so did not want to have to learn a new rule set. He does not play very often and is generally considered by our group to be quite eccentric with his varying attitudes to gaming.- One simply refused to play, and simply does not play with our groups 4E game, but is continuing to avidly play our 3.x campaign.- One hated the idea of being forced to suffer a new edition of the game, sampled 4E and hated it, but then had a talk with the DM, re-jigged his character (a striker) and now since he's &quot;winning&quot; again, he's happy with the game.Overall we are still playing the two different versions (something we did not do with 2E to 3E). I think we will continue to do so as well - each offers something slightly different, a variation of flavour assisted by the version. Both however are enjoyable. So while this may not count as a true schism as others have had, the transitional differences from 2E to 3E and then 3E to 4E is enough for me to vote no schism 2E to 3E but a schism 3E to 4E.Best RegardsHerremann the Wise</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Herremann the Wise, post: 4472263, member: 11300"] I first started playing with my current group during 2nd Ed. I played Red Box and AD&D at school with a different group. For us, 2nd to 3rd was something everyone was willing to give a go - no issues at all. We pretty quickly changed all ongoing campaigns over to 3rd. The change was I think welcome. 3rd to 3.5 was a slightly more gradual change as the books came out (although there was this weird period where we were 3.5 but some of our stuff was 3E waiting for the supplements to catch up). 3.5 to 4E was stuttered. The need to change was not that great. As I posted in another thread: In my group, there were three guys out of eight who were adamant against doing anything with 4E. - One is still trying to get his head around 3E and so did not want to have to learn a new rule set. He does not play very often and is generally considered by our group to be quite eccentric with his varying attitudes to gaming. - One simply refused to play, and simply does not play with our groups 4E game, but is continuing to avidly play our 3.x campaign. - One hated the idea of being forced to suffer a new edition of the game, sampled 4E and hated it, but then had a talk with the DM, re-jigged his character (a striker) and now since he's "winning" again, he's happy with the game. Overall we are still playing the two different versions (something we did not do with 2E to 3E). I think we will continue to do so as well - each offers something slightly different, a variation of flavour assisted by the version. Both however are enjoyable. So while this may not count as a true schism as others have had, the transitional differences from 2E to 3E and then 3E to 4E is enough for me to vote no schism 2E to 3E but a schism 3E to 4E. Best Regards Herremann the Wise [/QUOTE]

Verification