BryonD said:
But whatever, I'd call this a nitpick on degree, whereas you fully replaced my statement with a completely different meaning.
No, not really. I think calling the difference between "less complex" and "not at all complex" has a much deeper connotation than a simple difference in degree. But I don't think rehashing that any further is going to accomplish anything.
Do you accept that I did not say what you claim? I think that is the core question.
Since you were responding to something that I didn't say, yes, I have to acknowledge that you probably didn't mean what I thought you did.
That doesn't change the fact that it was rudely dismissive. If you want to keep discussing this--and I assume the fact that we're still going back and forth means that you do--I'll ask you not to assign or assume bias, regardless of how strongly you disagree with my interpretations. (Particularly since, in this case, you were assuming bias based on a misunderstanding of what I said.)
On the assumption that we can still discuss: You are right, they are certainly not mutually exclusive. But I think it is getting well ahead of ourselves to talk about future growth if the topic at hand is what impact on the market will starting complexity/hand holding have.
Okay, for the nonce (though I think that's really only one of the topics at hand).
In an extreme case, if a notably less complex starting 4E were to lose the interest of too many experienced players, and yet also fail to bring in a groundswell of next generation gamers, then the debate about growth of complexity is meaningless.
I don't believe for one moment that 4E's level of simplicity is going to drive off a huge fraction of the fanbase. I think it'll drive off a
few people, just as the "simplification" of 3E drove off a few people. (I still remember people who honestly complained about the dumbing down of the game that came with the loss of THAC0.
)
Sure, I could be wrong. So could WotC. That's always a gamble with a major change, such as a new edition. But I don't think so, especially since--as I've said--we've seen these same arguments before, and since the arguments we're seeing now are based on a tiny trickle of context-less and woefully incomplete information.
Something else to consider... So far, this discussion has revolved around the notion that "4E is being simplified" as though that were stated fact. It's not, at least not to the extent that some people are talking about.
Yes, it's simplified in as much as it's (purportedly) easier to play, faster to run, requires less prep. But on the flip side of the coin, every character now has a plethora of tactical options formerly reserved only for the full-advancement casters, and even they now have a variety of
types of powers to choose from.
So even if the game is
mechanically simpler, it doesn't necessarily follow that it'll be
tactically simpler, nor does it necessarily follow that PC creation will lack as full a range of options as 3E did at the same point in its lifecycle.
