Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AlioTheFool" data-source="post: 5953999" data-attributes="member: 82767">I actually whole-heartedly agree with this. The term should never have been referred to as "powers." That only set the edition up for the constant "this isn't a 'supes' game, rawr!" arguments.I don't disagree here, however, certain terms, like "Powers" in contemporary culture have associations that, say, "hit points" did not 35 years ago in its own time. That's really the problem here. When you hear "powers" in reference to a game most people immediately think of a video game or comic book. Neither of those endear older players to the table top version of our favorite game. ("D&D isn't WARCRAFT!!!")I've read enough of your posts to know we feel differently about D&D. That's fine, but as someone else said, there is no need to poison the discussion.That said, the "we" you used is a bit unfair. I made reference to Mike Mearls and his people working on appeasing people like me. The entire supposed appeal of the coming edition is one that bridges ALL editions, not just those you personally deem worthy. Beyond that, the plan is to make the game modular, therefore, you personally can ignore whatever you want to, while the game still allows me to play as I see fit. So the "we" you refer to doesn't actually have to include "you."I'm not sure how that's a "damn shame" in any way shape or form.As for what I meant, I'm not sure how I was unclear. Mike Mearls specifically stated in his Reddit conversation that they recognize that the current iteration of the playtest lacks appeal for 4E fans (like myself). He specifically stated that he was currently working on options for people (like myself) to fill in the gaps we feel are there right now. Perhaps you didn't read the Reddit conversation, in which case you might not have any idea what I'm talking about. That's fair enough. However, if you have an incomplete understanding of the topic, simply because you didn't put in the research, it's a tad unfair to point a finger at me for your lack of understanding.Absolutely agree. You won't find me saying that fans of 0,1,2,3,.5E shouldn't be made happy in D&DNext. There is space for us all at the dinner tables around the world.Absolutely agree. I don't expect the game to be "my" D&D. I just expect options to allow me to make D&DNext mine at my table. I agree it's a tall order and I fluctuate between thinking it's doable and not. I'm hopeful though.I don't have a problem revising terms either. Also, while I initially disliked the word "Powers" I didn't care much. The problem is, in order to grab a segment of the market they're looking to recapture, they're going to need to be careful with every term they use/discard.This is what I've advocated for years now. They should never have had the broad term "powers" though I suspect that word was used simply so they'd have a term to gather everything under when they produced the unified level progression table.It was a misstep, and caused more harm to the edition's identity than a single word should warrant. However, as I said above, the term "powers" in contemporary culture has a certain connotation to it and 4E has spent all of its lifetime fighting against an identity it created with its use.</blockquote>

Verification