Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DEFCON 1" data-source="post: 6176981" data-attributes="member: 7006">I don't think it's that hard to reconcile the statement at all.  And the answer is... many players just didn't think 4E worked for their particular playstyle and game.If you had a campaign that was working fine in 3.5 and found that adapting it to 4E when it was released would not give you the same experience... then you didn't switch.  It didn't work for you.  You might not have anything against the game as a whole (and in other situations, sure you might play it)... but if there was no reason to switch, then you didn't.  Nor should anyone have expected you to.  But HAD 4E worked for your campaign (and on fact gained you something you felt was missing)... you would easily have switched the campaign over to it.  Just like many people switched their 3.5 game to a Pathfinder game.Most players aren't "edition warriors" in that if a game works... they will play it.  Probably not for every type of campaign, but they aren't going to forsake a game "just because".  Now some players definitely will.  A few players still play only AD&D and will insist that every edition since then is a bad game and shouldn't be played (even if the other 99.9% of roleplayers think they're insane)... but that's why Mearls was talking about the predominant results from the surveys.  Most players think there is something good to be said about every past edition of the game... and thus will be fine to play it is that's the game and campaign available at the time.</blockquote>

Verification