Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="GVDammerung" data-source="post: 3864404" data-attributes="member: 33060">I suppose I must shoulder the burden of the old saying &quot;If you have to explain a joke . . .&quot;Then again, there is something behind the &quot;joke&quot; that has apparently gone missing, as well.&nbsp; I must shoulder that burden too.I'll try to be clearer and dryer.&nbsp; Lord of the Rings (The three films taken together) is the most popular and critically acclaimed fantasy film of all time without exception.&nbsp; It is what?&nbsp; A few years old?Yet, here we have 4e presenting the classic fantasy game in a less than classic fashion, either in the sense of the traditions of the game itself and in the sense of the style of the game.&nbsp; The logic I've heard for this is that the 4e approach is intended to feature the &quot;new fantasy&quot; (read anime and vieo games etc.) that appeals to today's potential gamers.&nbsp; And Tolkien (or arguably other classics) do not?&nbsp; At least to judge by the success of the Lord of the Rings movie franchise, &quot;classic&quot; fantasy has a very real and substantial appeal that is very current. 4e seems to intentionally ignore this in large measure.Now, this is not to say that Tolkien or any other bit of classic fantasy is &quot;the one true way.&quot;&nbsp; But it is to say, that I find Wotc's &quot;logic&quot; (as I understand it) in the thematic presentation of 4e a bit suspect.&nbsp; The available evidence on what type of fantasy sells seems to feature classic fantasy prominently, much more so than is being let on in 4e's design philosophy as I understand it.Okay.&nbsp; Let me try again.&nbsp; A human, a dwarf and an elf, I mean an eladrin, walk into a bar . . . stop me if you've heard this one . . .&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="GVDammerung, post: 3864404, member: 33060"] I suppose I must shoulder the burden of the old saying "If you have to explain a joke . . ." Then again, there is something behind the "joke" that has apparently gone missing, as well. I must shoulder that burden too. I'll try to be clearer and dryer. Lord of the Rings (The three films taken together) is the most popular and critically acclaimed fantasy film of all time without exception. It is what? A few years old? Yet, here we have 4e presenting the classic fantasy game in a less than classic fashion, either in the sense of the traditions of the game itself and in the sense of the style of the game. The logic I've heard for this is that the 4e approach is intended to feature the "new fantasy" (read anime and vieo games etc.) that appeals to today's potential gamers. And Tolkien (or arguably other classics) do not? At least to judge by the success of the Lord of the Rings movie franchise, "classic" fantasy has a very real and substantial appeal that is very current. 4e seems to intentionally ignore this in large measure. Now, this is not to say that Tolkien or any other bit of classic fantasy is "the one true way." But it is to say, that I find Wotc's "logic" (as I understand it) in the thematic presentation of 4e a bit suspect. The available evidence on what type of fantasy sells seems to feature classic fantasy prominently, much more so than is being let on in 4e's design philosophy as I understand it. Okay. Let me try again. A human, a dwarf and an elf, I mean an eladrin, walk into a bar . . . stop me if you've heard this one . . . :) [/QUOTE]

Verification