Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dragonblade" data-source="post: 5795711" data-attributes="member: 2804">Well if a broad definition of a fantasy heartbreaker is a game that is essentially a house ruled D&D, that tries to "fix" D&D, but falls short, and/or is doomed to irrelevance, then I would say neither 4e or PF would qualify. But for slightly different reasons.For one thing, while PF does fit the notion of a house-ruled D&D, it does actually "fix" a lot of 3e, so much so that it is considered the new standard for 3e style D&D by most who play the game, superseding 3e itself. So can you actually call it a "heartbreaker" when it actually succeeded in becoming a better D&D? At least a better 3e D&D, anyway? I don't think so.4e IS D&D, but aside from that its such a radically different game design from D&D of before, that even if it wasn't published by WotC, I think its highly debatable about whether it fits the stereotype of "house-ruled D&D clone" that heartbreakers fall under. It also enjoys a devoted fan following, enough that it would be considered a huge success by any other game company. Perhaps a heartbreaker to some D&D fans who wanted something more traditional, but to a significant amount 4e fans, its all heart, baby. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /></blockquote>