Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Pour" data-source="post: 5642429" data-attributes="member: 59411">Indeed. I have a feeling we're mostly on the same page. Just going to drop some quotes from my response to Bry a couple of pages back because I think they figure into my reply to you, as well.Focusing on a lost market of gamers happy with their editions is not the&nbsp; same thing as focusing on a game past, present, and future D&amp;D&nbsp; gamers can enjoy, and I think we both heartily advocate the latter, no&nbsp; matter what it looks like. If there is ever going to be any appeal for&nbsp; past markets, the way is&nbsp; forward, in the evolution of the current game&nbsp; until it reaches a point&nbsp; where lapsed players might again investigate&nbsp; it, when it ceases to be&nbsp; the game they didn't like and has evolved into&nbsp; something else. I, as a&nbsp; 4e&nbsp; DM, want the same thing, the continued expansion, creation and&nbsp;&nbsp; exploration of rules and settings.&nbsp; When I can no longer happily share&nbsp; in that process, then I think I know I've found my edition of choice,&nbsp; and will use it to my heart's content, until which time I may jump back&nbsp; on the train.
 
... if&nbsp; we're ever going to get to a new place, we need to cover new ground.&nbsp; Informed by the past, sure, but not beholden to it...

True, WotC took a step,&nbsp; and we're now seeing all editions take their continued, divergent&nbsp; evolutionary steps, which is exciting beyond belief, but 90% dead-end&nbsp; mutation and 10% new species is exactly the kind of failure and learning&nbsp; we need for progress. Would you be willing to say that 4e&nbsp; is a necessary and continued process on the road to new iterations of&nbsp; D&amp;D, which may or may not appeal to any and all lapsed, current and&nbsp; future players through virtue of their mechanical differences from the&nbsp; past and continued reverence to the IP, and even though we may differ on where designers&nbsp; should start when trying again, this process is ultimately for the&nbsp; better?
</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Pour, post: 5642429, member: 59411"] Indeed. I have a feeling we're mostly on the same page. Just going to drop some quotes from my response to Bry a couple of pages back because I think they figure into my reply to you, as well. [INDENT]Focusing on a lost market of gamers happy with their editions is not the same thing as focusing on a game past, present, and future D&D gamers can enjoy, and I think we both heartily advocate the latter, no matter what it looks like. If there is ever going to be any appeal for past markets, the way is forward, in the evolution of the current game until it reaches a point where lapsed players might again investigate it, when it ceases to be the game they didn't like and has evolved into something else. I, as a 4e DM, want the same thing, the continued expansion, creation and exploration of rules and settings. When I can no longer happily share in that process, then I think I know I've found my edition of choice, and will use it to my heart's content, until which time I may jump back on the train. ... if we're ever going to get to a new place, we need to cover new ground. Informed by the past, sure, but not beholden to it... True, WotC took a step, and we're now seeing all editions take their continued, divergent evolutionary steps, which is exciting beyond belief, but 90% dead-end mutation and 10% new species is exactly the kind of failure and learning we need for progress. Would you be willing to say that 4e is a necessary and continued process on the road to new iterations of D&D, which may or may not appeal to any and all lapsed, current and future players through virtue of their mechanical differences from the past and continued reverence to the IP, and even though we may differ on where designers should start when trying again, this process is ultimately for the better? [/INDENT] [/QUOTE]

Verification