Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Gothmog" data-source="post: 4331463" data-attributes="member: 317">Ok, your position makes more sense to me now, and its a valid point.&nbsp; If the game doesn't inspire you to want to play it and build your own world, then its a taste issue, which is perfectly valid.&nbsp; I know I felt the same way about 3e, and its one of the reasons I became a big fan of Savage Worlds and WHFRP2, and&nbsp; went to them for a long time for my gaming needs.&nbsp; I know having monks and sorcerers (cheap wizard knockoffs) in 3e felt jarring and wrong to me in the same way having warlords in 4e bugs you.&nbsp; I do admit I really enjoy 4e so far, because it corrects a lot of what I thought was wrong with 3e, and the new cosmology, flavor, and tone of the game does inspire me in a way no version of D&amp;D has since 1e AD&amp;D.&nbsp; The few things I don't like in 4e are easily changed, unlike 3e where I would have had to make sweeping changes to the whole system.&nbsp; Does that mean 3e is a horrible system or badly designed?&nbsp; Not necessarily, although I feel the math was way off, a lot of people still enjoy it.&nbsp; Ultimately, any edition of D&amp;D is what you make it, and not every edition is &quot;D&amp;D&quot; to everybody.&nbsp; 3e wasn't even close to D&amp;D for me, and 4e isn't for you- thats cool.&nbsp; I don't have any agenda other than wanting to have a fun game for me and my friends to play, and now that I understand your position, I can respect it.&nbsp; 4e D&amp;D isn't a moral affront or betrayal by WotC, its just a game that isn't to your taste, much like 3e wasn't to my taste.&nbsp; So play whatever is fun for you and your group and don't stress so badly over something silly like a game.&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Gothmog, post: 4331463, member: 317"] Ok, your position makes more sense to me now, and its a valid point. If the game doesn't inspire you to want to play it and build your own world, then its a taste issue, which is perfectly valid. I know I felt the same way about 3e, and its one of the reasons I became a big fan of Savage Worlds and WHFRP2, and went to them for a long time for my gaming needs. I know having monks and sorcerers (cheap wizard knockoffs) in 3e felt jarring and wrong to me in the same way having warlords in 4e bugs you. I do admit I really enjoy 4e so far, because it corrects a lot of what I thought was wrong with 3e, and the new cosmology, flavor, and tone of the game does inspire me in a way no version of D&D has since 1e AD&D. The few things I don't like in 4e are easily changed, unlike 3e where I would have had to make sweeping changes to the whole system. Does that mean 3e is a horrible system or badly designed? Not necessarily, although I feel the math was way off, a lot of people still enjoy it. Ultimately, any edition of D&D is what you make it, and not every edition is "D&D" to everybody. 3e wasn't even close to D&D for me, and 4e isn't for you- thats cool. I don't have any agenda other than wanting to have a fun game for me and my friends to play, and now that I understand your position, I can respect it. 4e D&D isn't a moral affront or betrayal by WotC, its just a game that isn't to your taste, much like 3e wasn't to my taste. So play whatever is fun for you and your group and don't stress so badly over something silly like a game. :) [/QUOTE]

Verification