Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Emerikol" data-source="post: 5987113" data-attributes="member: 6698278">It was a lot of fans say &quot;What happened to my D&amp;D?&quot;&nbsp; Thats all.&nbsp; Just like you are talking about 5e right now.&nbsp; There will be a 6e you know.&nbsp; Is it destroying 5e?&nbsp; I guess so technically.&nbsp; But then 1e,2e,and 3e have all been destroyed correct?I believe it attracted new players just like any edition of D&amp;D did. I don't think this new number is enormous.&nbsp; The hobby is niche.&nbsp; It's never going to be humongous.&nbsp; I think you are wrong here.&nbsp; Let's say 40% of all D&amp;D players are playing 4e right now.&nbsp; I really think it's not more than that.&nbsp; I believe half that 40% AT LEAST if not more are not wed to 4e style gaming.&nbsp; 4e was next and they played it.&nbsp; They will go on to 5e and then on to 6e.&nbsp; It's kind of why they keep making editions actually.I have the playtest and while I agree it's not 4e it is definitely designed with 4e principles in mind.&nbsp; Not saying you should try it but I've rejected it already for this reason.One of the ill consequences of avoiding the system mastery issue is the loss of a lot of flavor elements.&nbsp; I agree you always want your PCs to maintain a minimal level of combat competence but if you force all choices to be equal then you lose a lot.&nbsp; Perhaps an easier approach and one I'm considering in my own game I'm designing is to make choices add flexibility but not really raw power.&nbsp;&nbsp; Raw power is intrinsic to class and level.&nbsp; A thought anyway.I personally am as unreasonably biased for Monte as you are against.&nbsp; But not because of 3e.&nbsp; I just think he is the leading game design mind of our generation.&nbsp; I pretty much assume I'll buy every game he designs.&nbsp; Not every module mind you.&nbsp; Not every option book either.&nbsp; But if it's a new game I'll likely get it.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Emerikol, post: 5987113, member: 6698278"] It was a lot of fans say "What happened to my D&D?" Thats all. Just like you are talking about 5e right now. There will be a 6e you know. Is it destroying 5e? I guess so technically. But then 1e,2e,and 3e have all been destroyed correct? I believe it attracted new players just like any edition of D&D did. I don't think this new number is enormous. The hobby is niche. It's never going to be humongous. I think you are wrong here. Let's say 40% of all D&D players are playing 4e right now. I really think it's not more than that. I believe half that 40% AT LEAST if not more are not wed to 4e style gaming. 4e was next and they played it. They will go on to 5e and then on to 6e. It's kind of why they keep making editions actually. I have the playtest and while I agree it's not 4e it is definitely designed with 4e principles in mind. Not saying you should try it but I've rejected it already for this reason. One of the ill consequences of avoiding the system mastery issue is the loss of a lot of flavor elements. I agree you always want your PCs to maintain a minimal level of combat competence but if you force all choices to be equal then you lose a lot. Perhaps an easier approach and one I'm considering in my own game I'm designing is to make choices add flexibility but not really raw power. Raw power is intrinsic to class and level. A thought anyway. I personally am as unreasonably biased for Monte as you are against. But not because of 3e. I just think he is the leading game design mind of our generation. I pretty much assume I'll buy every game he designs. Not every module mind you. Not every option book either. But if it's a new game I'll likely get it. [/QUOTE]

Verification