Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Emerikol" data-source="post: 5987785" data-attributes="member: 6698278">I'm 100% sure if there is a market there will be a game.&nbsp; In fact I suspect there will be a game anyway.&nbsp; I'm for it.&nbsp; I am not 100% sure there is a super big market for 4e when you have a different game with D&amp;D on the label.&nbsp; But you don't need WOTC level sales to be successful as a small publisher.&nbsp; Look at Pathfinder.There has been outrage sure.&nbsp; Some guys at WOTC who thought they knew better swapped in another game and called it D&amp;D.&nbsp;&nbsp; They've all been fired now by the way.&nbsp; Mike Mearls was at the bottom of the pyramid in those days and now he's at the top.&nbsp;&nbsp; But how do you even go about destroying a game?&nbsp; Saying you don't like it?&nbsp; Was their a campaign to keep it out of game stores?&nbsp; I mean sure I may personally get together with friends and decide to buy and play something different but thats always been true.If you mean people have vociferously argued against the design philosophy of 4e in the hopes it doesn't appear too much in 5e then sure.&nbsp; Thats true every edition as well. &nbsp;I'm not into system mastery.&nbsp; I am though against trying so hard to balance every single choice that many get eliminated from because they aren't good enough.&nbsp; Maybe a point buy feat system would be better.&nbsp; So I can buy two cheap ones instead of a good one.&nbsp; The loss is loss of flavor and fluff.All of the profession/craft skills disappearing as skills was bad for me.&nbsp; Even though I know most of them aren't as useful as others for adventuring.&nbsp; That doesn't matter for me.&nbsp; I want the world modeled.&nbsp; I don't want excessive obsession with the game to the exclusion of world concerns.&nbsp;It is my opinion that they cannot do worse than 4e did.&nbsp; Impossible in my opinion.&nbsp; I didn't find the 4e fighter dripping with flavor.&nbsp; I found him full of gamish dissociative mechanic powers that added little or nothing to his flavor.&nbsp; Other than making the game one that is hard to take very seriously. I judge all work on it's own merits.&nbsp; And I don't go for adventures so I let Monte's go by mostly.&nbsp;&nbsp; But I love his games.&nbsp; I don't consider 3e &quot;his&quot; game.&nbsp; it was a committee design.&nbsp;Because I think a smorgasboard of options that DMs choose to use or not is better than mandating everything.&nbsp; It's why I'm excited about 5e.&nbsp; I'm the guy you say doesn't exist.&nbsp;&nbsp; The guy who likes traditional D&amp;D but wants something new in a new edition.&nbsp; We are a bigger faction than you think.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Emerikol, post: 5987785, member: 6698278"] I'm 100% sure if there is a market there will be a game. In fact I suspect there will be a game anyway. I'm for it. I am not 100% sure there is a super big market for 4e when you have a different game with D&D on the label. But you don't need WOTC level sales to be successful as a small publisher. Look at Pathfinder. There has been outrage sure. Some guys at WOTC who thought they knew better swapped in another game and called it D&D. They've all been fired now by the way. Mike Mearls was at the bottom of the pyramid in those days and now he's at the top. But how do you even go about destroying a game? Saying you don't like it? Was their a campaign to keep it out of game stores? I mean sure I may personally get together with friends and decide to buy and play something different but thats always been true. If you mean people have vociferously argued against the design philosophy of 4e in the hopes it doesn't appear too much in 5e then sure. Thats true every edition as well. I'm not into system mastery. I am though against trying so hard to balance every single choice that many get eliminated from because they aren't good enough. Maybe a point buy feat system would be better. So I can buy two cheap ones instead of a good one. The loss is loss of flavor and fluff. All of the profession/craft skills disappearing as skills was bad for me. Even though I know most of them aren't as useful as others for adventuring. That doesn't matter for me. I want the world modeled. I don't want excessive obsession with the game to the exclusion of world concerns. It is my opinion that they cannot do worse than 4e did. Impossible in my opinion. I didn't find the 4e fighter dripping with flavor. I found him full of gamish dissociative mechanic powers that added little or nothing to his flavor. Other than making the game one that is hard to take very seriously. I judge all work on it's own merits. And I don't go for adventures so I let Monte's go by mostly. But I love his games. I don't consider 3e "his" game. it was a committee design. Because I think a smorgasboard of options that DMs choose to use or not is better than mandating everything. It's why I'm excited about 5e. I'm the guy you say doesn't exist. The guy who likes traditional D&D but wants something new in a new edition. We are a bigger faction than you think. [/QUOTE]

Verification