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: 4522774" data-attributes="member: 1003">Yes and no. "Yes" that there was a division in play style before 4E. But we were all "current edition D&D players." Now we're not. So 4E divided us in that sense.I certainly try to be. Thanks.Per above, it was community based first, and it was more community based than rules based, but now it is both.As for your nature vs. nurture thoughts, I'd agree that it's primarily community based first. The game that captures the zeitgeist does well in the market. I've never seen any game that actually defined the market since Basic D&D, but that was a special case since it basically created the market. The D&D brand is certainly still powerful, but since the 90's (and especially since the OGL) there have been so many options available that any game that didn't match a chosen playstyle was simply dropped for other games.I think that's the reason 4E is so focused on one style of play. They knew that if they tried to straddle the difference any longer each group would go for a different game that matched their preferred style better. It's unfortunate for folks like me, but really not that unfortunate; the Hasbro Gestapo doesn't know where I keep my old rule books. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Heh. I certainly appreciate the sentiment. I really don't like Narrativist games though (at all; not even a little), so if that's your thing we'll probably have to leave it at beer and poker. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification