Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="GVDammerung" data-source="post: 3794663" data-attributes="member: 33060">There is a species of &quot;toady&quot; who regularly and repeatedly self-identify by more or less enthusiuastically supporting whatever Wotc is doing at a particular time, demuring in the mildest possible fashion at worst.&nbsp; I could name name but I'd likely get in trouble and you can read the thread and pick them out as readily as I, if you are familiar with ENWorld.The operative word is not &quot;ruin&quot; but &quot;change,&quot; particularly change of such a throughgoing sort without any seeming need for such and without any indicaion that any research suggests such is advisable.&nbsp; They appear to be just changing things because they can and obviously think its the thing to do.&nbsp; When such change impacts the core rules, one is moved to reflect on that, as opposed to a similar departure limited to a single published setting.Contrary to your assertion, there has never been a similarly throughgoing revision or reimaging that impacted the core rules.&nbsp; Rather, there have been revisions and reimagings limited to specific setting or clearly denominated as merely &quot;options.&quot;&nbsp; These changes are systemic to the core rules and they are not options, as presented.&nbsp; Weare in uncharted territory here with the scope of the changes being announced (and I don't limit this to just the devils and demons of the current discussion, they are simply the latest announcement).I said - If 4th Edition D&amp;D goes out there and does less well that 3X, you &quot;amen chorus&quot; folks announcing &quot;this rocks,&quot; &quot;I want me some of this&quot; etc. wll stand in sharp illumination as Wotc's chum . . . ps.&quot;&nbsp; The matter is not yet decided, hence &quot;if.&quot;&nbsp; Eventually, you may very well be, or I could be if 4E goes gangbusters.&nbsp; Unfortunately, I will garner no joy in being correct, if I am, as &quot;the world's most popular roleplaying game&quot; will in such case likely not quite so popular thanks to 4e.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="GVDammerung, post: 3794663, member: 33060"] There is a species of "toady" who regularly and repeatedly self-identify by more or less enthusiuastically supporting whatever Wotc is doing at a particular time, demuring in the mildest possible fashion at worst. I could name name but I'd likely get in trouble and you can read the thread and pick them out as readily as I, if you are familiar with ENWorld. The operative word is not "ruin" but "change," particularly change of such a throughgoing sort without any seeming need for such and without any indicaion that any research suggests such is advisable. They appear to be just changing things because they can and obviously think its the thing to do. When such change impacts the core rules, one is moved to reflect on that, as opposed to a similar departure limited to a single published setting. Contrary to your assertion, there has never been a similarly throughgoing revision or reimaging that impacted the core rules. Rather, there have been revisions and reimagings limited to specific setting or clearly denominated as merely "options." These changes are systemic to the core rules and they are not options, as presented. Weare in uncharted territory here with the scope of the changes being announced (and I don't limit this to just the devils and demons of the current discussion, they are simply the latest announcement). I said - If 4th Edition D&D goes out there and does less well that 3X, you "amen chorus" folks announcing "this rocks," "I want me some of this" etc. wll stand in sharp illumination as Wotc's chum . . . ps." The matter is not yet decided, hence "if." Eventually, you may very well be, or I could be if 4E goes gangbusters. Unfortunately, I will garner no joy in being correct, if I am, as "the world's most popular roleplaying game" will in such case likely not quite so popular thanks to 4e. [/QUOTE]

Verification