Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Remathilis" data-source="post: 7666567" data-attributes="member: 7635">Essentials marked a very pronounced &quot;Shift&quot; in tone for 4e. There were lots of signs of &quot;idea bouncing&quot; similar to Bo9S or Player's Options were in 3e/2e. Item rarity is one example. The subtle backing away form ADEU was another. However, most of the Essentials books were very much an attempt to grab back something that had gone &quot;missing&quot; somewhere; witness the Red Box reuse or the return of some classic elements (like elves, not eladrin, wizards). Mike Mearls, in some interview somewhere, once said to make 5th edition, he played every edition of D&amp;D and took notes on what he liked. He must have started this process during Essentials, because a lot of nostalgia started seeping into the rules around there. In 2008, the game screamed &quot;THIS AIN'T YOUR FATHER'S D&amp;D&quot; and by Essentials, it was &quot;Well, yeah it is. Check out this Elmore-cover we have!&quot;</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Remathilis, post: 7666567, member: 7635"] Essentials marked a very pronounced "Shift" in tone for 4e. There were lots of signs of "idea bouncing" similar to Bo9S or Player's Options were in 3e/2e. Item rarity is one example. The subtle backing away form ADEU was another. However, most of the Essentials books were very much an attempt to grab back something that had gone "missing" somewhere; witness the Red Box reuse or the return of some classic elements (like elves, not eladrin, wizards). Mike Mearls, in some interview somewhere, once said to make 5th edition, he played every edition of D&D and took notes on what he liked. He must have started this process during Essentials, because a lot of nostalgia started seeping into the rules around there. In 2008, the game screamed "THIS AIN'T YOUR FATHER'S D&D" and by Essentials, it was "Well, yeah it is. Check out this Elmore-cover we have!" [/QUOTE]

Verification