Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7805977" data-attributes="member: 996">Very true, IMX, as well. The problem was, I suppose, just not that many folks showing up to try it - and even that didn't exactly fit my experience, since our FLGS saw plenty of new gamers and grew rapidly from 2010 through 2014 (and is still growing, moved into new digs with more space for the second time).  Moving books is just a different proposition from being accessible to new players when they sit down at the table for the first time.  4e was more accessible than any version of D&D since B/X, but, at the same time, it was 'controversial' and had a whacked 'shelf presence,' and just wasn't timed to the market.  It was not innovative, player-focused, accessible D&D that the market was primed for in 2008, it was old-school revival. But, on topic, unless something changes dramatically, the market shows no signs of being ready for anything other than very traditional takes on D&D.  There's no impetus to a 6e, let alone a 6e as iconoclastic as 4e was. I found Ranger - strikers in general - a tad boring.  DPR just not that engaging.  But, /lots/ of players love just throwing out the big numbers, that way.  In retrospect, the game could've used a few more options like the Elemental Sorcerer, a lot earlier.</blockquote>