Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Emerikol" data-source="post: 6793287" data-attributes="member: 6698278">I disagree that 4e's &quot;problem&quot; was presentation.&nbsp; 4e's &quot;problem&quot; was that it dramatically switched sides in the game design philosophy department.&nbsp;&nbsp; It made those who had &quot;suffered&quot; in prior editions, or who hadn't known better and would suffer now, realize the sort of game they really wanted.&nbsp;&nbsp; The &quot;problem&quot; is that an awful lot of people still want the original side that D&amp;D had taken.&nbsp;&nbsp; 4e basically split the playerbase irrevocably.&nbsp;&nbsp; I never wanted 4e and I'd never be happy with it.&nbsp; I'd gladly play 3e before 4e or 5e.&nbsp;&nbsp; So 5e was tasked (impossibly I might add) with reuniting the playerbase.&nbsp;&nbsp; The problem is that the two sides have seen what they like and what they don't like.&nbsp; We are no longer ignorant.&nbsp;&nbsp; Now having said that, I believe the WOTC staff is too blind to even see the distinctions between the two sides.&nbsp;&nbsp; So Xeviat, I really do respect your position and preferences but I don't share them.&nbsp; I want the options complexity of 3e with traditional spell casters and martials but streamlined combat mechanics with fewer hit points like 5e.&nbsp;&nbsp; You might say that is 2e but I want a system.&nbsp; I want it all to fit together.&nbsp;&nbsp; The very things the designers grumbled about when working on 3e are things I probably like having.&nbsp;&nbsp; I want it all to work together like a good machine.&nbsp;&nbsp; I think we are like two political factions.&nbsp; There are obviously moderates out there that we can get to play in games we like but who can also play the other way too.&nbsp;&nbsp; We though are true believers in our style and enjoy that style.&nbsp; Nothing whatsoever like that.&nbsp;&nbsp; I will say though that the way I play I never or very rarely see the problems that you see in my style.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Emerikol, post: 6793287, member: 6698278"] I disagree that 4e's "problem" was presentation. 4e's "problem" was that it dramatically switched sides in the game design philosophy department. It made those who had "suffered" in prior editions, or who hadn't known better and would suffer now, realize the sort of game they really wanted. The "problem" is that an awful lot of people still want the original side that D&D had taken. 4e basically split the playerbase irrevocably. I never wanted 4e and I'd never be happy with it. I'd gladly play 3e before 4e or 5e. So 5e was tasked (impossibly I might add) with reuniting the playerbase. The problem is that the two sides have seen what they like and what they don't like. We are no longer ignorant. Now having said that, I believe the WOTC staff is too blind to even see the distinctions between the two sides. So Xeviat, I really do respect your position and preferences but I don't share them. I want the options complexity of 3e with traditional spell casters and martials but streamlined combat mechanics with fewer hit points like 5e. You might say that is 2e but I want a system. I want it all to fit together. The very things the designers grumbled about when working on 3e are things I probably like having. I want it all to work together like a good machine. I think we are like two political factions. There are obviously moderates out there that we can get to play in games we like but who can also play the other way too. We though are true believers in our style and enjoy that style. Nothing whatsoever like that. I will say though that the way I play I never or very rarely see the problems that you see in my style. [/QUOTE]

Verification