Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="timASW" data-source="post: 6068758" data-attributes="member: 6698787">I think this thread has shown me personally something I thought from the absolute begginning of Next but had dared to doubt for a while.You cannot bridge the 4e, other e(any) gap. You simply cant. You might be able to get some 4e'ers to try something different for D&D a few times but they wont stick with it or spend much money on it because its not what they want. You might be able to get other e'ers to try something with more 4e'isms but they wont stick with it or spend much money on it because its not what they want. Take myself as an example, i am vehemently opposed to meta game rules in game. To me they flat out break the immersion and destroy any fun i might take from the session. I would rather watch TV any night of the week then play a game like 4e. Even things like action points sometimes go too far. What others dismissively call "mother may I" I call roleplaying, and the whole dang point of the thing. That came to exist in the first place because it was understood that there are just too many possibilities in an RPG to come up with rules for everything you might try to do and a good group of good people will be able to get along just fine with cooperatively working things like this out on a case by case basis. What 4e people call "fiat" (mistakenly) like their provocation based abilities I call forcing an intelligent being to act ludicrously stupidly. And I'm pretty sure those same people would crap a brick if you had a monster use a come and get it type power on their 4e wizard. Its not narrative control of the game, its TAKING control of another players character (the DM's). There simply isnt a middle ground to make both camps happy. Both already have something that really hits what they want from D&D.Something that seems to have gotten lost is that thats just fine. Why should we all have to play the same game at the same tables? Why should we all have to play something we dont really like as much as something else thats already out there just so that we can sit at the same table? There are enough gamers out there for both types of games and both would probably be happier sticking with what they have then trying to be shoehorned into some kinda sorta middle ground. All that being said, financially I think WoTC is best off focusing on getting back older edition gamers. We've had longer to get sick of our edition of choice and want to try something new then 4e'ers. 4e'ers also seem to have a siege mentality thats come from everyone hating the game they really like. That doesnt encourage someone to switch and try something new.</blockquote>

Verification