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="LuckyAdrastus" data-source="post: 5322881" data-attributes="member: 82859">It is definitely true that you cannot convert 3.5 directly to 4e.  They are two different games, though set in the same genre, and with linked titles.  But definitely different games.  In switching from 3.5 to 4e, WotC stopped making new material for one game, and started making new material for a new game.  However, they've don that before -- 2.e to 3e is nearly a new game.  I just don't see what is wrong with that, though?I don't see why there is an imperative for D&D to remain backwards compatible through all of its editions.  There has been a lot of innovation in RPG design since the eras of (the much-missed) Gygax and Arneson.  Why not implement that new game design expertise?  Especially since the old material remains available and is still fully playable.  At the meetup I play in, there are regular 3.5/Pathfinder games and also some older D&D games too.It still comes down, to me, to the idea that WotC (or TSR, or anyone other company) has the right to stop making new material for one game, and start making new material for a new game.  While I can see disagreeing with the new direction, I still don't understand asserting that it is wrong at a base level for a company to even try going in a new direction.And yes, I understand that if you feel that D&D should only be 3.5, or 1e, or whatever, it might rankle to have other versions of the game out there.  But there have always been multiple versions of the game, so I don't see why WotC is the villian here, but everyone who ever house-ruled a game isn't.</blockquote>

Verification