NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="BryonD" data-source="post: 5826416" data-attributes="member: 957">As I said, because of a combination of tons of valid suggestions on improvements and an (probably unexpectedly so) huge fan base to re-tap.In hindsight I think they would agree with you.  But that does not remotely mean they thought that way then.I agree completely here.  4E's focus was an attempt to draw in a large number of new players.  Essentials was a effectively a mulligan.As I said, they had a huge fan base ready to be milked and plenty of valid feedback on the system which could be used as a justification.  It was exactly the fantastic sales that made them change their mind and strike while the iron was hot.(It is amusing to note that you spent the last couples years vehemently insisting that no amount of market information could allow us to do more than blindly and baselessly guess as to 4E's sales performance, but now you are completely comfortable making a single assumption and the extrapolating from that the success of 3E way back in 2003.  Nevermind that people much more in the know were calling that time period the "second golden age" of gaming.)Keep in mind, I'm not trying to make this black and white the way you are.  While I am unquestionably a fan of the 3.5 ruleset itself, there is plenty of room to be critical of the roll out.  And while I'm no fan of 4E/Essentials, the reasoning there seems understandable.  It is absurb to call either 3.5 or Essentials a "new edition".  If you want to start cherry-picking justifications you can make arguments that look reasonable on the surface for either claim.  And neither of those arguments stand up to an impartial and thoughtful consideration.</blockquote>

Verification