Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tharivious" data-source="post: 4029041" data-attributes="member: 28105">The reality is that, as of now, we don't have Magi confirmation whether ISRP will transition to 4E setting standards or not (and I know at least two of them are as disgusted by WotC's handling of it as I am <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":P" title="Stick out tongue&nbsp; &nbsp; :P"&nbsp; data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":P" /> ).&nbsp; So hyping up how bad it's bound to be is quite a bit premature.&nbsp; We aren't bound to any rules-set, and shouldn't be bound to change settings strictly on the basis of what WotC decides to do.The Tavern is still running strong (the strongest of the three fantasy settings), and Greyhawk/Oerth isn't being touched by 4E.&nbsp; I wouldn't write off 4E as the majority just yet, especially when it comes to setting changes (the Realms community is in a months-long uproar over how 4E has man-handled the setting, comparing New Realms to New Coke, and Sigil, aside from those who abritrarily dislike Planescape, is one of the most beloved settings in D&amp;D's history) or aesthetic changes (the alterations to halflings and dwarves, to be precise, let alone the complete overhaul done to tieflings).Devil's advocate inverse: Imagine the uproar of the players we have now losing non-elven/dwarven characters, and those with dwarves and elves having to age their characters 104 years.&nbsp; It's the exact same chance WotC has taken - alienating return customers/patrons on the gamble of attracting new ones that have no prior investment.&nbsp; It's a gamble that's going to alienate people either way.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tharivious, post: 4029041, member: 28105"] The reality is that, as of now, we don't have Magi confirmation whether ISRP will transition to 4E setting standards or not (and I know [i]at least[/i] two of them are as disgusted by WotC's handling of it as I am :P ). So hyping up how bad it's bound to be is quite a bit premature. We aren't bound to any rules-set, and shouldn't be bound to change settings strictly on the basis of what WotC decides to do. The Tavern is still running strong (the strongest of the three fantasy settings), and Greyhawk/Oerth isn't being touched by 4E. I wouldn't write off 4E as the majority just yet, especially when it comes to setting changes (the Realms community is in a months-long uproar over how 4E has man-handled the setting, comparing New Realms to New Coke, and Sigil, aside from those who abritrarily dislike Planescape, is one of the most beloved settings in D&D's history) or aesthetic changes (the alterations to halflings and dwarves, to be precise, let alone the complete overhaul done to tieflings). Devil's advocate inverse: Imagine the uproar of the players we have now losing non-elven/dwarven characters, and those with dwarves and elves having to age their characters 104 years. It's the exact same chance WotC has taken - alienating return customers/patrons on the gamble of attracting new ones that have no prior investment. It's a gamble that's going to alienate people either way. [/QUOTE]

Verification