NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 6681071" data-attributes="member: 6790260">Oh, I would love to lay into 5e and spell out exactly the ways that I think it's awful. I just don't see the point, now. Back when it was still a playtest, I had the simple justification of "it could actually change, so my criticism could have an effect." Now, though, there's little if any point--I would be Complaining About Games I Don't Play. The only exception I make for that is discussing fan-generated content that could, potentially, make it a game I'd actually be interested in playing (e.g. changes to the Fighter class, creating a Warlord, etc.) Beyond that, I have neither need nor interest in bitching about the (significant) issues I have with it, and although I risk projection by saying it, I suspect that a lot of 5e's critics feel the same way, e.g. "what's the point." It's a different kind of "edition aftermath" than the 3e-4e change. I think both "old guards" felt "betrayed" in a certain sense (I certainly did, what with the repeated statements of inclusivity and creating options for 4e-like content...that were all vaporware), to be sure. But, at least this time around, it seems like the people who felt that way just shrugged and went to the game(s) they liked.Of course, I also think that people like you (who liked 4e and also have no major beef with 5e) are more common than those who liked/loved 4e and dislike/hate 5e, but anything even remotely more specific than "more common" is going to be a questionable assessment, no matter whether it's "only slightly more common" or "much more common." That said, though, I don't think I've seen a single person who really liked/loved 4e, and who felt that 5e even partially delivered on replicating the experience from it, except in the weakest and most trivial sense (that is, 'you're still playing D&D so there are classes, levels, ability scores starting 3-18')--analogous to "well I'm still eating ice cream, but this is mint chocolate chip when I wanted tropical sorbet..."So it would seem. I can understand that to an extent--considering how hard it was (and apparently still is, given things we've seen in this thread) for 4e to be recognized as "D&D." It just seems to me (and this might have been part of your point) that people *got* all the validation they really need; nobody accuses 5e of being "not-D&D" or "some other game with 'D&D' written on it." All this giddiness and need for validation at the level of "golden ages" sounds like...gilding the lily. (Pun absolutely intended! <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" />)</blockquote>

Verification