Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 5962839" data-attributes="member: 87792">That's an interesting point.&nbsp; I think most 4e players would accept some pretty huge changes from 4e as long as the changes were for a purpose.&nbsp; I think a lot of us would like a new edition of 4e that burns about a thousand feats and sorts out things like Twin Strike and other multiattacks - the sort of thing producing 3.5 was supposed to do for 3e and that 2e did for 1e*.&nbsp; But in the absence of a second version of 4e (meaning that 4e looks as if it will be the longest lasting edition of D&amp;D produced by WoTC), I think what most of us would be happy with is a game that knew what it wanted.&nbsp; That was trying to do something well - and something different from 4e.&nbsp; If the vision for the game could be set out in a couple of sentences that don't reference other games (and it doesn't really matter what that vision is) we'd probably get something we'd play.&nbsp; However the wishy-washy goal to be all things to all D&amp;D players and the designers not being sure what that even means or why many of the rules are there (see the Opportunity Attack fiasco) isn't what we want.In short if WotC were to put out something like <a href="http://www.pelgranepress.com/?p=8354" target="_blank">13th Age</a> I think we'd all buy it happily.&nbsp; Whether we'd switch I don't know.&nbsp; But the current stew isn't of much interest.&nbsp; Forward not back.&nbsp;* No, Essentials doesn't count.&nbsp; Its role is somewhat closer to The Book of 9 Swords or Magic of Incarnum.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Neonchameleon, post: 5962839, member: 87792"] That's an interesting point. I think most 4e players would accept some pretty huge changes from 4e as long as the changes were for a purpose. I think a lot of us would like a new edition of 4e that burns about a thousand feats and sorts out things like Twin Strike and other multiattacks - the sort of thing producing 3.5 was supposed to do for 3e and that 2e did for 1e*. But in the absence of a second version of 4e (meaning that 4e looks as if it will be the longest lasting edition of D&D produced by WoTC), I think what most of us would be happy with is a game that knew what it wanted. That was trying to do something well - and something different from 4e. If the vision for the game could be set out in a couple of sentences that don't reference other games (and it doesn't really matter what that vision is) we'd probably get something we'd play. However the wishy-washy goal to be all things to all D&D players and the designers not being sure what that even means or why many of the rules are there (see the Opportunity Attack fiasco) isn't what we want. In short if WotC were to put out something like [URL="http://www.pelgranepress.com/?p=8354"]13th Age[/URL] I think we'd all buy it happily. Whether we'd switch I don't know. But the current stew isn't of much interest. Forward not back. * No, Essentials doesn't count. Its role is somewhat closer to The Book of 9 Swords or Magic of Incarnum. [/QUOTE]

Verification