Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 5842154" data-attributes="member: 82106">Yeah, I both agree with you, and at the same time disagree with you, lol. hehe.I was really disappointed in 2e. 1e had been around for a dozen years, was a bit dated even when it was released, and was WAY long in the tooth. We'd tapped it pretty hard. Its limitations were heavily in evidence and we'd grown rather impatient with them. Then along came 2e and was basically a big fat nothing. Oooooh! THAC0!!!!!! WOW! At best you can say it was a slight incremental improvement on 1e. IMHO I'd have much rather have had a game that made some real significant changes to the game. So, 1e -&gt; 2e, I agree with you.4e -&gt; 5e is a totally different situation. 4e hasn't been around for years, and is already a radical update to the system. It is also far from perfected, yet a vast improvement over 3e. I don't need 5e to be some radically new thing. I've barely scratched the surface of 4e frankly. I'd love to see 4e perfected into a 5e and I have not even the slightest trace of interest in what was in AD&amp;D. Played and ran it for 25 years and more. If it has some ideas that can be mined for 5e, great, by all means. I just don't need to go back, and I want to see the current direction carried forward. It can be improved in so many ways and holds such vast promise. So, when it comes to 5e I don't exactly agree with you. I think 4e -&gt; 5e should be bigger than 1e&nbsp; -&gt; 2e in some ways, but I'm perfectly fine with it being fundamentally an incremental evolution of 4e. I can still hope that such a game will actually be the main line of 5e development.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="AbdulAlhazred, post: 5842154, member: 82106"] Yeah, I both agree with you, and at the same time disagree with you, lol. hehe. I was really disappointed in 2e. 1e had been around for a dozen years, was a bit dated even when it was released, and was WAY long in the tooth. We'd tapped it pretty hard. Its limitations were heavily in evidence and we'd grown rather impatient with them. Then along came 2e and was basically a big fat nothing. Oooooh! THAC0!!!!!! WOW! At best you can say it was a slight incremental improvement on 1e. IMHO I'd have much rather have had a game that made some real significant changes to the game. So, 1e -> 2e, I agree with you. 4e -> 5e is a totally different situation. 4e hasn't been around for years, and is already a radical update to the system. It is also far from perfected, yet a vast improvement over 3e. I don't need 5e to be some radically new thing. I've barely scratched the surface of 4e frankly. I'd love to see 4e perfected into a 5e and I have not even the slightest trace of interest in what was in AD&D. Played and ran it for 25 years and more. If it has some ideas that can be mined for 5e, great, by all means. I just don't need to go back, and I want to see the current direction carried forward. It can be improved in so many ways and holds such vast promise. So, when it comes to 5e I don't exactly agree with you. I think 4e -> 5e should be bigger than 1e -> 2e in some ways, but I'm perfectly fine with it being fundamentally an incremental evolution of 4e. I can still hope that such a game will actually be the main line of 5e development. [/QUOTE]

Verification