Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Greg K" data-source="post: 1848475" data-attributes="member: 5038">I thought the problem was 1) people tired of power creep in the kits (which the class variants seem to avoid); 2) people getting tired of DNDisms; 3) those who were detractors of any new edition. And yes,&nbsp; those individuals who take optional to mean it must be in the game were also a problem, but they exist in 3.x as well.&nbsp; Just look at the amount of player&nbsp; posts on wizard's site (and they can be found to some degree here on ENWorld) regarding players thinking that, just because they own a book or want a Prc, the DM has to let it the game.&nbsp; &nbsp;While not indicative of DMs in the community as a whole, based on exchanges that I have had here, monte's site, and at wizard's, many DM's ignored the customizing characters example from the PHB, because they did not feel WOTC gave them enough to work with the thug example or the example in the DMG .&nbsp; Without enough examples of class variants and WOTC's supplement focus on PrCs, many DM just ignored class variants and relied on multiclassing and PrCs. &nbsp; I don't mind the fact that splat books contain player options, but if it is a player/DM option, I expect more real options on the subject for the DM which is what I consider alternate combat mechanics or magic systems to be.Exactly.&nbsp; I agree it is nice to be able to debate (which too often on message boards is misinterpreted as fighting or flaming).&nbsp;&nbsp; 3.x is good, because at least people are getting the material.&nbsp; I can respect the opinion of those on these boards, who truly like everything or the majority of things WOTC puts out for DND. The only opinions I really don't expect&nbsp; are those individuals, who despite not liking WoTC's DND stuff, continue purchasing WOTC products blindly and advocate that others do the same under the impression that this helps the game.&nbsp; I don't mind so much how they choose to spend their money other than they miss out on supporting some great 3rd party stuff and might be *possibly* distorting WOTC's perceptions of what things, if any, need to be changed.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Greg K, post: 1848475, member: 5038"] I thought the problem was 1) people tired of power creep in the kits (which the class variants seem to avoid); 2) people getting tired of DNDisms; 3) those who were detractors of any new edition. And yes, those individuals who take optional to mean it must be in the game were also a problem, but they exist in 3.x as well. Just look at the amount of player posts on wizard's site (and they can be found to some degree here on ENWorld) regarding players thinking that, just because they own a book or want a Prc, the DM has to let it the game. While not indicative of DMs in the community as a whole, based on exchanges that I have had here, monte's site, and at wizard's, many DM's ignored the customizing characters example from the PHB, because they did not feel WOTC gave them enough to work with the thug example or the example in the DMG . Without enough examples of class variants and WOTC's supplement focus on PrCs, many DM just ignored class variants and relied on multiclassing and PrCs. I don't mind the fact that splat books contain player options, but if it is a player/DM option, I expect more real options on the subject for the DM which is what I consider alternate combat mechanics or magic systems to be. Exactly. I agree it is nice to be able to debate (which too often on message boards is misinterpreted as fighting or flaming). 3.x is good, because at least people are getting the material. I can respect the opinion of those on these boards, who truly like everything or the majority of things WOTC puts out for DND. The only opinions I really don't expect are those individuals, who despite not liking WoTC's DND stuff, continue purchasing WOTC products blindly and advocate that others do the same under the impression that this helps the game. I don't mind so much how they choose to spend their money other than they miss out on supporting some great 3rd party stuff and might be *possibly* distorting WOTC's perceptions of what things, if any, need to be changed. [/QUOTE]

Verification