Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ourchair" data-source="post: 5662919" data-attributes="member: 85362">If you're alluding to the concept of an opt-in/tiered level of complexity that Mearls has been brain-stewing as a possiblity for a future edition, and figuring out how to translate that into future products (i.e. a campaigns setting that is all Es at once!) I can't actually imagine what that's like even though I'm sure it's possible (and would take a decade worth of playtesting)But I agree with you, I think WotC should be looking at developing the current paradigm, and if they are really interested in supporting past models (i.e. design philosophies implied by previous editions) then at the very most that should be something that exists in supplementary material (perhaps  Insider/mag content that talks about say converting Orcs of Stonefang Pass into a 3e adventure). It would definitely make the Insider subscription look more attractive, I think.That said, I dislike the notion of trying to dilute current products by making them edition-inclusive. As it is, I'm unhappy with how Amethyst has a great setting but the 4e books go painfully against the grain of 4e concepts and design philosophy (no offense to the creator, who I know is on this board) and reads like a 3e book catering to a current edition. So, if WotC catered to past editions, I worry it would look like Amethyst and compromise the 4e design ideology</blockquote>