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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 5781994" data-attributes="member: 42582">This doesn't bug me at all.I don't feel that I'm feeling fear, but I do feel that the design direction that is being flagged in the L&L columns - especially Monte Cook's - seems almost to wilfully disregard some of the features of 4e that make it such a strong game for (at least some of) those who play it.Which creates the possibility that the design will leave a certain style of play out in the cold.Which is fine as far as it goes - I can run my game with what I've got, I have a stable group, and I've GMed out of print games before - but would perhaps not be the best outcome for a unity edition.Or, to come at it in another way: it is trivially obvious, to me at least, why for those who prefer a certain sort of AD&D play (Gygaxian, Pulsipherian play) 4e is not a very good game. A unity edition, then, will have to make some - perhaps many - changes if it is to support that style of play. But I find there is a recurrent tendency, among at least some of those who don't like 4e, to dismiss the playstyle preferences of those who like it, rather than to note what it is about 4e that is different from classic D&D and that supports that other playstyle.If WotC want a unity edition, they need to think about their mechanics from both sides of the fence. So it's all very well to say "healing surges out", "warlords out" etc, but if this also means "pacing devices out", "inbuilt, effortless three-act combat pacing out", etc, then we have an edition that is not a unity edition but just a retro or reactionary one.</blockquote>

Verification