Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mercurius" data-source="post: 5286970" data-attributes="member: 59082">As far as I can tell, #1 is not true. But it isn't really an either/or; at what point, for example, does errata accumulate to such an extent to require a revised edition? My impression is that Essentials serves a few purposes:1) It is a newly packaged gateway into 4E for newbies. 2) It collects, collates, and consolidates all existing errata.3) It tweaks a few rules here and there.Whether we call that &quot;4.5&quot; is entirely a matter of how we are using the term &quot;4.5.&quot; If people take issue with it being too extreme, how about 4.3? Or 4.24 as someone suggested? It doesn't matter to me and I am not out to get WotC on this one, although I do find the whole dynamic interesting. At the least we can say that &quot;Essentials&quot; is not just #1 above--it is also 2 and 3, and maybe more (we don't really know yet).I am not saying that WotC is Evil and money-grubbing (if they are that is beside the point and not something I particularly care to discuss).&nbsp; If anything I think the same arguments that people have been making about Essentials could have been made about 3.5: It is only as apocalyptic and life-changing as one allows it to be.&nbsp; 3.5 might have invalidated previous rule books, but did it? One could still play 3.0 and buy 3.5 and use them with very little adjusting. At the least it did not invalidate 3.0 game play, just as 3E didn't invalidate 2E, etc. Any DM with a bit of creativity and time and energy can adapt any edition-specific material to their edition of choice.1) Thanks for a recap of College Freshman Mentality 101. That is the biggest non-statement in the book: &quot;But that's just your personal opinion, no more valid than anyone else's.&quot; Yeah, and so is yours, and his and hers....can we move on with the conversation, please? By equalizing everyone's opinion you basically just wipe the slate clean and allow the very same conversation to take place, yet with the re-affirmation that everything we say is just our opinion, no more valid than anyone else's. Or do we need to deconstruct it ad infinitum? <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/yawn.png"&nbsp; class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":yawn:" title="Yawn&nbsp; &nbsp; :yawn:" data-shortname=":yawn:" />2) Got up on the wrong side of the bed today?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mercurius, post: 5286970, member: 59082"] As far as I can tell, #1 is not true. But it isn't really an either/or; at what point, for example, does errata accumulate to such an extent to require a revised edition? My impression is that Essentials serves a few purposes: 1) It is a newly packaged gateway into 4E for newbies. 2) It collects, collates, and consolidates all existing errata. 3) It tweaks a few rules here and there. Whether we call that "4.5" is entirely a matter of how we are using the term "4.5." If people take issue with it being too extreme, how about 4.3? Or 4.24 as someone suggested? It doesn't matter to me and I am not out to get WotC on this one, although I do find the whole dynamic interesting. At the least we can say that "Essentials" is not just #1 above--it is also 2 and 3, and maybe more (we don't really know yet). I am [I]not [/I]saying that WotC is Evil and money-grubbing (if they are that is beside the point and not something I particularly care to discuss). If anything I think the same arguments that people have been making about Essentials could have been made about 3.5: It is only as apocalyptic and life-changing as one allows it to be. 3.5 might have invalidated previous rule books, but did it? One could still play 3.0 and buy 3.5 and use them with very little adjusting. At the least it did not invalidate 3.0 game play, just as 3E didn't invalidate 2E, etc. Any DM with a bit of creativity and time and energy can adapt [I]any [/I]edition-specific material to their edition of choice. 1) Thanks for a recap of College Freshman Mentality 101. That is the biggest non-statement in the book: "But that's just your personal opinion, no more valid than anyone else's." Yeah, and so is yours, and his and hers....can we move on with the conversation, please? By equalizing everyone's opinion you basically just wipe the slate clean and allow the very same conversation to take place, yet with the re-affirmation that everything we say is just our opinion, no more valid than anyone else's. Or do we need to deconstruct it ad infinitum? :yawn: 2) Got up on the wrong side of the bed today? [/QUOTE]

Verification