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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Sammael" data-source="post: 4617370" data-attributes="member: 4475">In my view, 4E is not an evolution of 3.x (or D&D as a whole). In that sense, it cannot be referred to as "progression." Rather, it is a completely different game that only bears the D&D moniker for trademark purposes, and, as such, is not "evolutionary."3E kept most of the concepts that existed in AD&D and (generally) updated them to be in line with the trends in RPG development which were current at the time. If you opened an AD&D book and looked up a concept, chances are it had a counterpart in 3E (kits became prestige classes, nonweapon proficiencies became skills, Skills & Powers stuff became feats, saves were streamlined, etc).4E apparently started in much the same way, but somewhere along the line, the developers apparently said "to hell with it, this is just too hard to fix," developed a new game, and then stuck a few D&D-isms on it to lure people to convert. This is not evolution. The developers did not "fix" 3.x, they developed a whole new game; that game has a lot of problems on its own, some of which are the same as the problems that existed in 3.x (and it is undeniable that 3.x had its own slew of problems). This is not to say that 4E is not a good game, it's simply a different one, and to me (and a lot of other people), it's sufficiently different that we cannot consider it as the next step in the evolution of D&D. I'll stand by my opinion that if 4E were developed by a 3rd party and not by the largest player in the market, it would have been a niche game - with a level of acceptance akin to that of Blue Rose or True 20 at best.</blockquote>

Verification