Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Kinetti" data-source="post: 4303904" data-attributes="member: 34654">Anti-capitalist "profit is ebil!" rhetoric aside, I will actually concede my own ambivalent-at-best attitude toward 4E. Primarily for reasons already discussed by ol' Tharivious. I also don't necessarily mind the simpler rules, what little I've read about them. What I also dislike greatly is the "change for the sake of change" tone of much. Using same names but greatly-different beings such as fiends, celestials, and the Eladrin, the further gutting/fracturing of the Planes, and so on. Then again, I'm less horrified about what they did from 3E to 4E with the planes, than I was with what they did to destroy the greatness of 2nd Ed Planescape in the change-over to 3E. heh. I guess I'm just less surprised this time -- to me they're just finishing the destruction 3E did to the planes. At least with this new set-up, it's easier to facilitate "each world using its own planes" now. Is it "too soon" for a new Ed? I guess it depends on if you also count 3E and 3.5E as two separate Eds. True, AD&D 1st Ed lasted 12 years and 2nd Ed lasted 11 (my research showed it was released in 1989, and 3E in 2000, after all), and 2nd Ed had its own "half an Ed" if you want to call it that with the Player's Option series, though that was seen as quite optional, unlike 3.5E. It did see a revision of the core rulebooks as well, but not till '96, and if I remember right that was just more rearranging the content for easier reference, than actual overhauls of what the content was. But this shows us that even those two Eds didn't remain static. My theory is that a new Ed is proposed when a current Ed seems to be getting too cumbersome for new players to easily delve into. That does beg the question on if this is one reason (beyond the "mo' money!" hypoethesis of course <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue    :p"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" /> ) that 3E was tossed aside. I don't know if I think it got so cumbersome so quick, but perhaps the designers thought so. However, as they started planning 4e already in, what was it, '05? '06? I doubt it. It's a thought though. On the other hand, some of the changes aren't so bad, primarily rules-set stuff. I like how they mainstreamed the Warlock, seperation of Powers so that each class has its own niche to lessen overlap, and so on. Is it too MMORPG? Maybe, but with the rise of those games, whether we like it or not, I find myself hard-pressed to blame WotC too much. They fear losing more market-share to these online computer games. After all, when some player from this very community vanishes for a while, and we ask them where they were, if it's not work or family, more often than not it's "oh, I was hooked on [insert MMORPG here]".</blockquote>

Verification