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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="BryonD" data-source="post: 5834586" data-attributes="member: 957">I find it very interesting that you say THAT when just shortly before you said: I've played in a lot of 3E games over the past decade plus.  There have been druids and clerics in them, played well, and there have been monks and fighters in them.  (Not a whole lot of monks, but for purely player preference reasons, and still some.)  The monks and fighters were not remotely "left behind".Are you telling me my game does not exist?  Or do you retract your previous statement?  Or are you simply holding a massive double standard?I completely agree that 3E doesn't have a safety net and in giving DMs the freedom to do whatever they want they have also given DMs freedom to run games that suck.  I don't for one second question that you may have experienced games that sucked exactly as you describe.  But, the thing is, other people DO REALLY find that 4E sucks in ways that don't apply to you.  As Mearls put it, 4E told people if you want to play guitar you should play thrash metal.   If you happen to be someone who WANTS to play thrash metal, then you won't see any problem.  But you need to look around at the broader horizon and realize that it isn't impossible with significantly different expectations to find the character that does exist in your game to completely fail to live up to what other personal expectations aim for.  And that says nothing remotely negative about either side.  I agree that 3E didn't work for you.That doesn't mean that 3E monks were "the load".I agree that your 4E character works for you.That doesn't mean that 4E offers the range of experiences that the overall gaming market demands.</blockquote>

Verification