Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="ProfessorCirno" data-source="post: 4520616" data-attributes="member: 65637">I think this is one of the big problems, but when 3e came out, the two big praises were (to paraphrase) &quot;This is the next evolution of D&amp;D&quot; and &quot;This saved D&amp;D for us!&quot;Namely, 3e was in most ways close enough to 2e to be converted and to see the trail connecting the two editions, and when 3e came out 2e had been drowning itself in a pool of vomit.&nbsp; It's OWN vomit, at that.&nbsp; Gross.With 4e, on the other hand, what I really see a lot of is &quot;I hated 3e, but this is like a totally different game!&quot;&nbsp; A lot of people don't want it to be a different game though, and that's where a lot of the ire comes from.&nbsp; The other problem was that 3e was standing up and doing just fine; heck, not long before 4e was announced, Wizards was saying that 4e wasn't even planned because 3e was doing fine and dandy.Again, I'm not trying to state 4e is bad or good; I'm simply trying to show the differences between the 2e-3e switch and the 3e-4e switch.&nbsp; I think the major point is the first though - there WAS a really old poll that was revived before 4e was announced regarding 3e, and most of the people stated &quot;3e is simply the next and best evolution of dungeons and dragons.&nbsp; It's what I liked about 2e without what I disliked.&quot;&nbsp; Whereas, again, with 4e I see a lot of &quot;Man I hated DMing 3e/something about 3e/bad thing in general possibly not related to 3e, I'm so glad Wizards decided to do something different with 4e.&quot;&nbsp; It's that different bit that has hackles raised.&nbsp; 2e took 1e and expanded it.&nbsp; 3e took 2e and GREATLY expanded it, which was in fact the complaint some people have with 3e - that it was really bloated.&nbsp; But 4e just seemed to give 3e the cold shoulder and started it's own thing.&nbsp; Some people like it, some don't, but it's very much going to start fights.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="ProfessorCirno, post: 4520616, member: 65637"] I think this is one of the big problems, but when 3e came out, the two big praises were (to paraphrase) "This is the next evolution of D&D" and "This saved D&D for us!" Namely, 3e was in most ways close enough to 2e to be converted and to see the trail connecting the two editions, and when 3e came out 2e had been drowning itself in a pool of vomit. It's OWN vomit, at that. Gross. With 4e, on the other hand, what I really see a lot of is "I hated 3e, but this is like a totally different game!" A lot of people [I]don't want[/I] it to be a different game though, and that's where a lot of the ire comes from. The other problem was that 3e was standing up and doing just fine; heck, not long before 4e was announced, Wizards was saying that 4e wasn't even planned because 3e was doing fine and dandy. Again, I'm not trying to state 4e is bad or good; I'm simply trying to show the differences between the 2e-3e switch and the 3e-4e switch. I think the major point is the first though - there WAS a really old poll that was revived before 4e was announced regarding 3e, and most of the people stated "3e is simply the next and best evolution of dungeons and dragons. It's what I liked about 2e without what I disliked." Whereas, again, with 4e I see a lot of "Man I hated DMing 3e/something about 3e/bad thing in general possibly not related to 3e, [B]I'm so glad Wizards decided to do something different with 4e[/B]." It's that different bit that has hackles raised. 2e took 1e and expanded it. 3e took 2e and GREATLY expanded it, which was in fact the complaint some people have with 3e - that it was really bloated. But 4e just seemed to give 3e the cold shoulder and started it's own thing. Some people like it, some don't, but it's very much going to start fights. [/QUOTE]

Verification