Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7642951" data-attributes="member: 996">Were they failed, or were they successful in defusing controversy?&nbsp;I would opine that 5e has returned us to the good old days of 1e, as it's given the game back to the DM, in stark contrast to 3e and (actually theoretically on topic) 4e.LFQW is prominent in all eds of D&amp;D, except 4e, it's a structural feature* of class designs, to imply otherwise is misleading. I think part of the communication breakdown, here is that you think of 3e as difinitively D&amp;D, when its just difinitively d20, while I consider 1e definitive. I can agree it'd be a mistake, because we already have 5e, PF1, and OSR for that - and that's just the D&amp;D &amp; clones currently in print, folks can also dig up the actual TSR era and 3.x games, themselves, if they want.&nbsp; It's a crowded market with a 500lb gorilla totally dominating it.&nbsp; It'd also be a mistake not to, because anything else is going to be very niche, and because PF1 even exists, as such, in part because their core fanbase rejected a version of D&amp;D that didn't provide exactly that.Ultimately, IMHO, putting out a new game instead of jumping on the D&amp;D bandwagon is a mistake. There's just no opening for a d20 D&amp;D clone or fantasy heartbreaker in the current market like there was in 2009.&nbsp;To be fair, we're talking last year, from the perspective of loyal PF1 customers.Most of those currently into 5e won't even be aware of it, nor have any impetus to go looking.&nbsp; * indeed, for all the criticism it receives for making overall class balance impossible and confining functional play to a 'sweet spot' level range, LFQW is a feature - a necessary defining feature - of D&amp;D.&nbsp; That it's also a technical 'bug,' notwithstanding.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 7642951, member: 996"] Were they failed, or were they successful in defusing controversy? I would opine that 5e has returned us to the good old days of 1e, as it's given the game back to the DM, in stark contrast to 3e and (actually theoretically on topic) 4e. LFQW is prominent in all eds of D&D, except 4e, it's a structural feature* of class designs, to imply otherwise is misleading. I think part of the communication breakdown, here is that you think of 3e as difinitively D&D, when its just difinitively d20, while I consider 1e definitive. I can agree it'd be a mistake, because we already have 5e, PF1, and OSR for that - and that's just the D&D & clones currently in print, folks can also dig up the actual TSR era and 3.x games, themselves, if they want. It's a crowded market with a 500lb gorilla totally dominating it. It'd also be a mistake not to, because anything else is going to be very niche, and because PF1 even exists, as such, in part because their core fanbase rejected a version of D&D that didn't provide exactly that. Ultimately, IMHO, putting out a new game instead of jumping on the D&D bandwagon is a mistake. There's just no opening for a d20 D&D clone or fantasy heartbreaker in the current market like there was in 2009. To be fair, we're talking last year, from the perspective of loyal PF1 customers. Most of those currently into 5e won't even be aware of it, nor have any impetus to go looking. * indeed, for all the criticism it receives for making overall class balance impossible and confining functional play to a 'sweet spot' level range, LFQW is a feature - a necessary defining feature - of D&D. That it's also a technical 'bug,' notwithstanding. [/QUOTE]

Verification