Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="shadzar" data-source="post: 5459198" data-attributes="member: 6667746">Now you have confused me. You don't want organized worship but do?The thing is in either case, YOU envision the game as W&M said, and that and probably JIT works for you because that is the type of game you were looking for. It doesnt work for others looking for a different type of game than you. Your JIT style works, because your players agree with you and don't want to witness the citizens actually worshiping anything or need that kind of continuity.You seem to play an out of sight out of mind kind of game. If that works for you, then great.What made the game popular and may be holding back its popularity for others is the lack of those things that you enjoy doing without.As I said in the other thread, your playstyle works for you and your players and that should be all that matters to you, but you must accpet that kind of playstyle isnt popular with everyone and capturing you by aligning with your playstyle, could be a cause of reduced popularity in 4th edition.It doesn't make your playstyle wrong, but others have a view of what yo playstyle seems to be. If you are happy with it, what do you care what industry/genre name it has been given?Dungeon Crawls, hack-n-slash, dungeon-basher, tactical simulation, all of these CAN include other parts, but their primary focus IS, like 4th edition, the combat format.The combat is where the story is just like in movies.This is the exact thing. You are looking for a much different depth that others are. Some want that richness provided in the details. This is EXACTLY what some people want. That is the simulationism they want. A real world that the player is enveloped in. Books and movies often skip the economics because it isn't part or a good movie or book. Oddly Harry Potter books and movies took time to describe the economy of wizard money versus muggle money. People ate it up so much that galleons, knuts, etc was made for sale.4th edition tells people to throw out the minutiae and bookkeeping, except for combat lets add more there, because that isnt fun. You agree with that, others do not. Those wanting that minutiae and simulation, the game wasn't made for them. Hell they are flat out told that isnt fun. Why would the game be popular when the very books insult them about what they like?Gary had the same problem with his "no thespianism" rule. Seems clothes and types of games aren't the only retro things, but attitudes as well....Gary "no thespians": 1979WotC "____ isn't fun": 2008Didn't make it 30 years but was darn close.So how you are feeling insulted by people viewing 4th edition as a tactical skirmish game, you are seeing how those people feel about 4th when it tells them that "traipsing through fairy rings isnt fun".The thing is,when the company says it, it is a slap in the face and they are biting the hands that feed them because they are insulting a playstyle by denying it as a valid way to play the game. When another gamer says it, who cares, it is their opinion.You would likely not play the next edition if it was designed around and claimed that your current method of play was wrong, correct?With comments like this you seem to want that tactical skirmish game, so what is so insulting about it?</blockquote>

Verification