Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Reynard" data-source="post: 3802439" data-attributes="member: 467">I think one thing people tend to forget is that, at launch, 3E was so popular and successful because it took a &quot;back to basics&quot; approach.&nbsp; I forgot it too -- years of rules bloat, supplement treadmilling and the changes in direction and tone in 3.5 made it hard to remember.Although the rules were different in a lot of ways, 3E resembled 1E far more in playstyle and tone than it resembled later 2E.&nbsp; &quot;Back to the dungeon&quot; was just one element of this-- in core 3E archetypes are strong, demons and devils were back, etc...&nbsp; It was really taking a look at all the companies that produced -- and continued to produce -- &quot;old school&quot; modules for 3E for me to realize this (in my current quest to get back to old school gaming).From what we have sen so far, 4E is not going with a &quot;back to basics&quot; approach.&nbsp; Quite the opposite.&nbsp; The idea seems to be creating a new game from whole cloth, with a new paradigm of play and relationships between players and DMs, and a whole new meta-setting.&nbsp; All for the prupose of hittinga&nbsp; new demographic. It doesn't mean the game is going to be bad, or porrly designed or anything like that.&nbsp; But it does mean that arguments of &quot;it doesn't feel like D&amp;D&quot; are totally valid. If you sat down with the Wizards in Charge and asked them what their goals were for 4E, I think you'd likely hear something along the lines of making D&amp;D as popular, profitable and relevent as WoW.Really, I think that WotC is grossly underestimating the value of the sacred cows they are so set on chopping up into hamburger.&nbsp; Those sacred cows are what make D&amp;D what it is, not whether you use na d20 or d100 to resolve actions.&nbsp; One of those sacred cows is the importance of the DM in defining the game, the milieu and the campaign.&nbsp; All those &quot;flavour&quot; changes should be shunted off to setting books or adventures or pretty much anyplace besides the 3 core books.&nbsp; one of the strengths of D&amp;D has always been that it is &quot;vanilla&quot; in the Core and individual groups could put whatever toppings on it they wanted.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Reynard, post: 3802439, member: 467"] I think one thing people tend to forget is that, at launch, 3E was so popular and successful because it took a "back to basics" approach. I forgot it too -- years of rules bloat, supplement treadmilling and the changes in direction and tone in 3.5 made it hard to remember. Although the rules were different in a lot of ways, 3E resembled 1E far more in playstyle and tone than it resembled later 2E. "Back to the dungeon" was just one element of this-- in core 3E archetypes are strong, demons and devils were back, etc... It was really taking a look at all the companies that produced -- and continued to produce -- "old school" modules for 3E for me to realize this (in my current quest to get back to old school gaming). From what we have sen so far, 4E is not going with a "back to basics" approach. Quite the opposite. The idea seems to be creating a new game from whole cloth, with a new paradigm of play and relationships between players and DMs, and a whole new meta-setting. All for the prupose of hittinga new demographic. It doesn't mean the game is going to be bad, or porrly designed or anything like that. But it does mean that arguments of "it doesn't feel like D&D" are totally valid. If you sat down with the Wizards in Charge and asked them what their goals were for 4E, I think you'd likely hear something along the lines of making D&D as popular, profitable and relevent as WoW. Really, I think that WotC is grossly underestimating the value of the sacred cows they are so set on chopping up into hamburger. Those sacred cows are what make D&D what it is, not whether you use na d20 or d100 to resolve actions. One of those sacred cows is the importance of the DM in defining the game, the milieu and the campaign. All those "flavour" changes should be shunted off to setting books or adventures or pretty much anyplace besides the 3 core books. one of the strengths of D&D has always been that it is "vanilla" in the Core and individual groups could put whatever toppings on it they wanted. [/QUOTE]

Verification