Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ProfessorPain" data-source="post: 4672118" data-attributes="member: 82012">1) Every game has aspects missing to some players. For every player who says this part rocks, there is a player who wants less of it and more of something else. 2) This is entirely subjective. If the people who buy the supplement see it as an improvement, then for them it is. 3) This is also subjective.I think most game companies try to make games that will appeal to millions, but it is a difficult industry to achieve wide success in. Wizards has lots of money to spend on market research (which is very expensive), has a top notch design team, has the D&D name brand recognition, and has the spectacular success of 3E to build on. Most companies don't have these resources. But there are a number of games out there by other companies that lots of people are excited about. I think wizards has done a great job, and I hope they stay succesful, because it helps the hobby overall. I just am not a fan of the new skill system. But I like skill based games. And was hoping 4E would go even more in that direction. I don't think wizards should do something just because I want to see. But I do like to give my opinion. I think there is more interest in a robust skill system than lots of people seem to think. And I think that when 4E was designed, they paid more attention to the critics of 3E, than to the people who loved 3E, which is why there is such a split. That said, they did what they set out to do. They definitely won over the people that had problems with or reservations about 3E. And they even converted some of the die hard 3E people. At the end of the day, there are loads of different games out there, and it is always better if you play the one that suits your tastes. But it is also good to stretch and play a system that you are not familiar with or that has elements you don't like.</blockquote>

Verification