Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 5272318" data-attributes="member: 996">I'm not objecting to the game doing something new and possibly getting better, I'm objecting to game backsliding to an aproach that had long been proven to be worse, and which took some major pain to finally get away from.&nbsp; I'm certainly not being a stick-in-the-mud 'grognard' who refuses to accept change - or I'd be playing Pathfinder, or still playing 2e with old college buddies.4e was a big change to the game.&nbsp; It slaughtered sacred cows, made the game more aproachable by radically reducing the need for 'system mastery,' and went from a hard-core-gamer 'simulationist' aproach, to an easier 'gamist' one.&nbsp; That was radical change, and I was OK with it, even though I'm one of those hard-core hobbyists who's been gaming since 1980.&nbsp; I live in Silicon Valley, I work in the high tech industry.&nbsp; I can handle change.&nbsp; And, I can tell constructive change from change-for-it's-own-sake, from reaction.&nbsp;&nbsp; Essentials is not a big change, but it's a change that seems to be backsliding.&nbsp; &nbsp; And, why it's backsliding leads us to...The 'new' options and approaches aren't new, they're retro.&nbsp; They're being undertaken because enough people /complained and wouldn't move on/.&nbsp; Is that irony lost on you?&nbsp;Absolutely.&nbsp; And the kids that played it back then are in their theoretical 'peak earning years' now.&nbsp; Going 'retro' is a painfully obvious aproach, and one gauranteed to meet with at least a little success.&nbsp; Geeky guys getting on towards their mid-life crisises are bound to buy the notalgic Red Box.&nbsp; If the game is evocative enough of the old game, they might even get back into it.&nbsp; If you address some of the 3.x hold-outs biggest complaints (XOMG! martial powers! barf!), you might apease a few of them, too.&nbsp; So you'll lose a few players who liked 4e, no problem:&nbsp; if you could trade all the current 4e customers for all the former 3.x and 1e customers, you'd be way ahead of the game.Which underpins why it seems so obvious to me that Essentials is aimed primarily at the 'old new' or 'lapsed' players.&nbsp; They bought millions of this crap before, they're around 40, feeling their mortality, they'll do it again.&nbsp; Flawlessly logical.&nbsp; Not good news for sellers of red sports cars, but probably inevitable.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 5272318, member: 996"] I'm not objecting to the game doing something new and possibly getting better, I'm objecting to game backsliding to an aproach that had long been proven to be worse, and which took some major pain to finally get away from. I'm certainly not being a stick-in-the-mud 'grognard' who refuses to accept change - or I'd be playing Pathfinder, or still playing 2e with old college buddies. 4e was a big change to the game. It slaughtered sacred cows, made the game more aproachable by radically reducing the need for 'system mastery,' and went from a hard-core-gamer 'simulationist' aproach, to an easier 'gamist' one. That was radical change, and I was OK with it, even though I'm one of those hard-core hobbyists who's been gaming since 1980. I live in Silicon Valley, I work in the high tech industry. I can handle change. And, I can tell constructive change from change-for-it's-own-sake, from reaction. Essentials is not a big change, but it's a change that seems to be backsliding. And, why it's backsliding leads us to... The 'new' options and approaches aren't new, they're retro. They're being undertaken because enough people /complained and wouldn't move on/. Is that irony lost on you? Absolutely. And the kids that played it back then are in their theoretical 'peak earning years' now. Going 'retro' is a painfully obvious aproach, and one gauranteed to meet with at least a little success. Geeky guys getting on towards their mid-life crisises are bound to buy the notalgic Red Box. If the game is evocative enough of the old game, they might even get back into it. If you address some of the 3.x hold-outs biggest complaints (XOMG! martial powers! barf!), you might apease a few of them, too. So you'll lose a few players who liked 4e, no problem: if you could trade all the current 4e customers for all the former 3.x and 1e customers, you'd be way ahead of the game. Which underpins why it seems so obvious to me that Essentials is aimed primarily at the 'old new' or 'lapsed' players. They bought millions of this crap before, they're around 40, feeling their mortality, they'll do it again. Flawlessly logical. Not good news for sellers of red sports cars, but probably inevitable. [/QUOTE]

Verification