Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
[L&L] Campaigns in D&D Next
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Iosue" data-source="post: 6249820" data-attributes="member: 6680772"><p>KM, I think that's an entirely reasonable take, and I agree with much of it. I would point out, though, that what you wrote hardly applies only to 4e. That's exactly the playbook WotC used for the 3e marketing, as well, only the we're a lot more strident in their mockery of 2e. They did, after all, make up t-shirts belittling 2e, and listing all the ways 3e was going to be better. On the whole, it seems like WotC's gotten more and more circumspect about criticizing the previous edition which each new one they've released. </p><p></p><p>Personally, thinking back to threads on the subject here back in 2010, 2011, I maintain what I said back then: the so-called bashing of 3e wasn't nearly as bad as 3e fans often characterized it as, and certainly not as bad as the 2e bashing. Explaining where the new design differs from the old, even characterizing those differences as improvement does not bashing make, and is actually essential in the marketing of a new edition. Most of my fellow 4e fans seemed to agree at the time. The only difference now is, I apply the same standard to 5e marketing, but it seems most of my one-time comrades apply a stricter standard. Now, praise and use of previous design is seen as implicitly criticizing 4e. This L&L being a textbook example. The whole column is about being able to choose your level of rules engagement, that point for any group where "the rules serve the gaming group" <em>be that the whole works of skills, feats, backgrounds, subclasses, and encounter guidelines, or none of it</em>, and somehow it's spun into Mearls slamming 4e.</p><p></p><p>Here's what Mearls was implicitly saying.</p><p>4e rules didn't serve its players when they want quick chargen, quick combat, and to not have to pay feat taxes to keep pace with the game math.</p><p>3e rules didn't serve its players when they wanted quick chargen, quick combat, and characters not unintentionally built weaker than others.</p><p>AD&D rules didn't serve its players when they wanted create their own concept of a character, and play with integrated, universal mechanics.</p><p>Classic D&D didn't serve its players when they wanted customizable characters and clear rules for multiple situations.</p><p></p><p>5e will probably have it's own problems, but the goal is to not have the above.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Iosue, post: 6249820, member: 6680772"] KM, I think that's an entirely reasonable take, and I agree with much of it. I would point out, though, that what you wrote hardly applies only to 4e. That's exactly the playbook WotC used for the 3e marketing, as well, only the we're a lot more strident in their mockery of 2e. They did, after all, make up t-shirts belittling 2e, and listing all the ways 3e was going to be better. On the whole, it seems like WotC's gotten more and more circumspect about criticizing the previous edition which each new one they've released. Personally, thinking back to threads on the subject here back in 2010, 2011, I maintain what I said back then: the so-called bashing of 3e wasn't nearly as bad as 3e fans often characterized it as, and certainly not as bad as the 2e bashing. Explaining where the new design differs from the old, even characterizing those differences as improvement does not bashing make, and is actually essential in the marketing of a new edition. Most of my fellow 4e fans seemed to agree at the time. The only difference now is, I apply the same standard to 5e marketing, but it seems most of my one-time comrades apply a stricter standard. Now, praise and use of previous design is seen as implicitly criticizing 4e. This L&L being a textbook example. The whole column is about being able to choose your level of rules engagement, that point for any group where "the rules serve the gaming group" [i]be that the whole works of skills, feats, backgrounds, subclasses, and encounter guidelines, or none of it[/i], and somehow it's spun into Mearls slamming 4e. Here's what Mearls was implicitly saying. 4e rules didn't serve its players when they want quick chargen, quick combat, and to not have to pay feat taxes to keep pace with the game math. 3e rules didn't serve its players when they wanted quick chargen, quick combat, and characters not unintentionally built weaker than others. AD&D rules didn't serve its players when they wanted create their own concept of a character, and play with integrated, universal mechanics. Classic D&D didn't serve its players when they wanted customizable characters and clear rules for multiple situations. 5e will probably have it's own problems, but the goal is to not have the above. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
[L&L] Campaigns in D&D Next
Top