Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Razuur" data-source="post: 4527657" data-attributes="member: 1997">Yes, I think it went to far.Mostly because before it was an everyman's game.  And I feel that WOTC specialized it to be a game for only a few play styles.  You could play from a wide variety of gaming styles with 3e.  Unlike a lot of people, i don't think that 4e is crap.  It is definitely a popular game amoung some gamers, because it does cater to its targeted audience EXTREMELY well.  Unfortunately, that targeting eliminated other groups from being able to play/enjoy the game.I mean ODD and 1e was about dungeon crawling mostly, and we were just learning about roleplaying.  With 2e, the system had adapted to try and cater more to roleplaying (while still being robust at combat).  We saw a number of really diverse setting bloom and appear.  3e seems to have tried to to everything - cater to the RPers with RP rules and to the combat players with extensive combat rules.  Many people felt that in trying to cover all bases it did noe of them well.  3.5 tried to fix things, and began to tilt even more towards minatures play.4e took the RPing out of the rules and essentially made a very fluid tactical combat game in which everybody played a role.  It also was aimed at making GMing easy and minimizing game prep.  It embraced I think 4e achieved much of its goals at a price.  I really like how it is supposed to be easy to prep for a game, but dislike the reliance on minatures and I understand what they did.  D20 was sprawled all over the place.  They understood what they were doing, and rather than go halfway, took the bold step of bringing everyone back in under one clear concise ruleset.  It severed a huge chunk of their audience, but they are gambling on it bringing even more people.  I was waiting to see the game before I cast my judgement.  I figured they were going in the direction they did (not my direction) and was upset at first, but now I am not.What did I want 4e to be?1.  Simple as a player2.  Simple as a GM to prep and run3.  Easy to play4.  Allow minatures, but not required them.5.  Fixed hit point allowing for variant options for variant styles.6.  Allowed diverse characters (including non-combat ones)7.  Had rules condusive to role-playing8.  Replaced the spell slot system9.  Replaced the aging alignment system10.  Is an everymans game that supports a diverse variety of play stylesI am not into arguing the points above, because I think that they are subjective.  I think it did acheive some of them.  But others id did not - for some yes and others no.  I would have loved for them to realease a basic game with basic rules, followed by a Roleplayers handbook, a Miniatures handbook, and a Campaign/GM handbook.  Allowing people to tailor the game to their style.Alas, it was not to be.  It really only allows a few styles of play, a few types of characters, and requires minatures (to be fun - I am sure you COULD play the game without them - but why would you?).For those that 4e works for I salute you and wish you many happy hours of gaming happiness.  for those that got left behind I feel and share in you pain.Razuur</blockquote>

Verification