Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Zappo" data-source="post: 54009" data-attributes="member: 633">Also. But if a 4e came out with the changes suggested, published by WotC, still a majority of gamers will stay in 3e. Or, better, they would if 3e was still supported - if WotC actually discontinued 3e in favor of a &quot;4e&quot;, most likely a good number of people would switch no matter how bad the new edition, because of support alone.I'm all in favor of new options! I've repeated over and over again that the rule you suggest are sensible and will certainly improve the game for a good number of players. What I would not want to see is them as core rules, simply because that's not how most people like to play D&amp;D. I fear that including them as options in the core books would be unfeasible, because the whole system needs to be balanced in a totally different way.Exactly. Which is why the core rules should appeal to the majority, and optional books should be out for the others. I'm not saying that a d20 book with the optional rules AND the balance changes needed for them to work would not sell. I'm saying that it would not sell as well, or even come close to, the usual D&amp;D.People with a strong suspension of disbelief don't need a perfectly coherent system. Hell, if a lot of people can enjoy The Matrix and ignore the glaring plot holes...They make the game fun. They don't detract from it. This is not because of the inconsistencies, and not even despite them. It's simply that the fact that some things don't make sense has no impact whatsoever on the enjoyability of the game, and in fact a good number of gamers don't even realize some of the less obvious ones unless they get pointed out (see the example with my friend above).Additionally, some of the inconsistancies are an integral part of the D&amp;D 'style', such as for example the fact that you can fight normally at 1 HP, or the fact that a blow that would vaporize a commoner is just another wound for a high-level fighter. That's why I said that what you call a fault, I call a feature.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Zappo, post: 54009, member: 633"] Also. But if a 4e came out with the changes suggested, published by WotC, still a majority of gamers will stay in 3e. Or, better, they [i]would[/i] if 3e was still supported - if WotC actually discontinued 3e in favor of a "4e", most likely a good number of people would switch no matter how bad the new edition, because of support alone.I'm all in favor of new options! I've repeated over and over again that the rule you suggest are sensible and will certainly improve the game for a good number of players. What I would not want to see is them as core rules, simply because that's not how most people like to play D&D. I fear that including them as options in the core books would be unfeasible, because the whole system needs to be balanced in a totally different way.Exactly. Which is why the [i]core rules[/i] should appeal to the majority, and [i]optional books[/i] should be out for the others. I'm not saying that a d20 book with the optional rules AND the balance changes needed for them to work would not sell. I'm saying that it would not sell as well, or even come close to, the usual D&D.People with a strong suspension of disbelief don't need a perfectly coherent system. Hell, if a lot of people can enjoy The Matrix and ignore the glaring plot holes...They make the game fun. They don't detract from it. This is not because of the inconsistencies, and not even despite them. It's simply that the fact that some things don't make sense has no impact whatsoever on the enjoyability of the game, and in fact a good number of gamers don't even realize some of the less obvious ones unless they get pointed out (see the example with my friend above). Additionally, some of the inconsistancies are an integral part of the D&D 'style', such as for example the fact that you can fight normally at 1 HP, or the fact that a blow that would vaporize a commoner is just another wound for a high-level fighter. That's why I said that what you call a fault, I call a feature. [/QUOTE]

Verification