Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Irda Ranger" data-source="post: 4522545" data-attributes="member: 1003">Doctorhook, speaking of "irreconcilable differences", I'd like to quote you against .. yourself. vs.Your observation in the first quote is spot on. You're not the first one to notice this, but you're right, and I'm happy to give you full credit for figuring it out on your own.But your absolute correctness in the first quote undercuts the second quote. It's both community-based and rule system-based. 3E tried to cater to both sides of the community, and 4E picked one. And they did it by changing the rules.So one side of the community (which I'll call the "Wormwood-Snoweel Alliance") is happy as a pig in mud, because 4E is now exactly the game they were always trying to play.  However another side of the community (which I'll call the "Irda-Midget Imperium") is like "Well crap, these rules are useless for playing the game we're interested in."I don't have the quotes you're looking for (there was more than one), but I remember them quite clearly. Maybe some ware in a podcast? Anywho, it was Mearls who said (if you'll allow me to paraphrase from memory) that "We [meaning WotC] have made several design choices that the 3.x designers were certainly aware of but but passed the buck on because they didn't want to abandon the simulationist players. Well, we think by making these choices we can make a better, more focused game for the way most people play it." And he may have been right (sadly).And the whole design team said on multiple occasions that "Nothing was off the table" as far as sacred cows were concerned.In feel and effect, it is quite different.</blockquote>

Verification