Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pawsplay" data-source="post: 5594980" data-attributes="member: 15538">But it is unlikely I would have as high-quality experience. Setting aside preconceptions for the moment, 4e is not for me. It's like someone made a list of all the things in 3e that some people like, but I don't, and said, "Let's make D&D like this, but more!" 4e is not ever going to be an optimized experience for me.Even if I had a very positive experience, it would not sell me in the game. I had a really great time playing Star Wars d20 Revised. My last game was one of my favorite campaigns ever. I think mechanically, Star Wars d20 RCR shoots Saga Edition out of the water. And yet... having had the benefit of experience, I have to say Star Wars d20 RCR is a flawed game. I would point to it more as an example of things going wrong than as a model of innovation in d20. What is good about it is that it is Star Wars, and of all the d20 versions of Star Wars, it is the best.D&D 4e can never be that for me. First of all, it's only somewhat D&D to me. It's the first edition of D&D I know of where you need a different set of miniatures because the characters and creatures have changed so much. You could play 3e with AD&D official miniatures, or AD&D with the Giants of Legend set. Any given 4e-inspired set, however, is full of things that make me scratch my head. Second, it's not the best D&D there is. 3.5 is, or if you're willing to let Pathfinder under the heading, Pathfinder is. That is not to say that 3.0 does not have its charms, or AD&D for that matter (although I have not played it since 1997 and do not plan on ever returning to it). But 3.5 is superior to 4e, in my opinion, and no matter how positive an experience I may have with 4e, I am going to continue to believe that 3.5 is a more agreeable game to me. Because in terms of game choice, what matters is not simply my experiences, but the experiences I anticipate in the future. If I switched to 4e over one good experience, I would essentially be switching due to nostalgia, and a thin one at that. No session of 4e is going to convince me that the Elf/Eladrin split is a good idea, that 1st level "elf" PCs should have magical teleports, or that tieflings or dragonborn are plausible core races for any of the campaigns that interest me. It is never going to escape my attention that 4e started off with a a "two ability score" paradigm and later switched to a "Nevermind, just pile most of your points into your prime ability" paradigm, with several classes stumbling through the transition. "Starleather" is not my cup of tea. I hate game-centric economies with stupidities like selling valuable, reusable magical artifacts for 20% of their nominal value. There are plenty of people for whom those aren't issues, and 4e is meant for them. Not for me.The reason edition wars happen is because some people will not leave well enough alone. It's okay that I don't like 4e. It's okay others like it. It is preposterous to think I am going to become a convert. ... At the point at which I get insulted for stating I will not be converted, that's when I get angry. I am not clinging to 3e, nor am I blind to 4e's innovations. It's very clear to me, simply, that 4e is not going to be the game I want. I own at least eight other games I can think of I would rather play for heroic fantasy, over D&D 4e. If I don't want to play 3e, for whatever reason, why wouldn't I play a game of Talislanta, or Hero System, or GURPS, or what-have-you? I already like those games. I am not a 3e person for any religious, personal, or psychological issue; 3e/Pathfinder isn't even necessarily my main game. I simply prefer what I prefer.</blockquote>

Verification