Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dannyalcatraz" data-source="post: 6072867" data-attributes="member: 19675">I'll try to be as neutral in my language as possible:I like 4Ed as a FRPG, but not as D&D.  As I've said before, its kind of like New Coke: for all of its strengths and how it addressed the well-researched concerns many voiced online, it was too big a departure for many of the market's core from what came before to mesh with the product identity of prior editions.  We got a good foreshadowing of that from the developers' prerelease comments about why there would be no conversion guide for 4Ed, and they were not kidding.What this did, functionally, was turn off a lot of players from even trying it because it lacked that continuity.I personally have the rare perspective of playing in a campaign that dates back to 1985, and has been converted through each edition of D&D up to and including 3.5Ed.  But we couldn't do that with 4Ed- too much had changed.  Those few PCs we tried to convert played radically differently than they had over the prior decades.  Some PCs were not supported until later supplements- not surprising- and still others remain unsupported to this day.The thing is, when I look at the marketing tools and market share that Hasbro/WotC had in 2006-8, I really think 4Ed could have succeeded as a distinct FRPG from WotC as opposed to the fate suffered by Everway.  I also think that it would have fared better as a distinct game without the encumbrance of trying to handle all those legacy issues & sacred cows like Vancian Casting or even being a class-based RPG.  Despite my love of many of D&D's sacred cows, I honestly think they weighed down 4Ed's pretty good mechanical engine.Hell- stripped of classes, alignments, and other D&D legacy mechanics, it might have been perfect for the launch of a M:tG RPG...</blockquote>

Verification