Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Windjammer" data-source="post: 5469730" data-attributes="member: 60075">Mike Mearls is on record for belonging to the camp of &quot;will (mostly) not play 3E again&quot;. It came up in an early 4E podcast, shortly after the announcement of 4E at Gencon. Andy (Collins) and him talk about running their own 3.x games alongside the (then) super secret 4E playtest games; Mearls relates about how he on occasion slipped in (by mistake) 4E'isms into his 3e sessions. Anyway, in a brief aside - and that's why I mention it - he goes &quot;I actually stopped enjoying 3E&quot;. And Andy goes &quot;Is that really so?&quot;. That moment nailed the difference between the two of them for me. Andy Collins may have made a full switch to 4E at the time too, but he'll hold a life long appreciation for 3.5 at a personal level. I loved his opening retort when asked, in an interview, about Pathfinder RPG, and Andy goes &quot;You know? It's based on a very good game.&quot;Point the second - Mearls is not fond of 2E and, like Rob Heinsoo, is on record for losing interest in the game during that era. It translates into his (Mearls') way of designing modules. Loved that moment when a segment of the Paizo crowd voiced their dissatisfaction with some of his &quot;low on story&quot; contributions to the Age of Worms adventure path. Mearls replied (I hope I remember this correct) &quot;I'm more of a 1E person - you give people a locale, and the story writes itself&quot;.And that's really it. Like Bob Salvatore, Mike is really a 1E person. As he once said on Jeff Rients' blogspot:The BIG thing about the editorial, though, is that while Mike, like any other fan of D&amp;D, has edition preferences, he also gets the point that sometimes it's better to attend to similarities, stuff we share. I fully share that sentiment but, unlike him, don't see how that should stop us from engaging in heated discussion on editions' differences. It's precisely been because of many a heated discussion on editions' differences that my appreciation of each of them deepened.To create a &quot;Rally Point&quot; (to use a WAR'ism) for all D&amp;D fans - well, that's a tall order. It would have to synch up with actual stuff produced by WotC, and short of Steve Winter's extraordinary columns (&quot;D&amp;D Alumni&quot;) I don't really see anything to fit the bill.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Windjammer, post: 5469730, member: 60075"] Mike Mearls is on record for belonging to the camp of "will (mostly) not play 3E again". It came up in an early 4E podcast, shortly after the announcement of 4E at Gencon. Andy (Collins) and him talk about running their own 3.x games alongside the (then) super secret 4E playtest games; Mearls relates about how he on occasion slipped in (by mistake) 4E'isms into his 3e sessions. Anyway, in a brief aside - and that's why I mention it - he goes "I actually stopped enjoying 3E". And Andy goes "Is that really so?". That moment nailed the difference between the two of them for me. Andy Collins may have made a full switch to 4E at the time too, but he'll hold a life long appreciation for 3.5 at a personal level. I loved his opening retort when asked, in an interview, about Pathfinder RPG, and Andy goes "You know? It's based on a very good game." Point the second - Mearls is not fond of 2E and, like Rob Heinsoo, is on record for losing interest in the game during that era. It translates into his (Mearls') way of designing modules. Loved that moment when a segment of the Paizo crowd voiced their dissatisfaction with some of his "low on story" contributions to the Age of Worms adventure path. Mearls replied (I hope I remember this correct) "I'm more of a 1E person - you give people a locale, and the story writes itself". And that's really it. Like Bob Salvatore, Mike is really a 1E person. As he once said on Jeff Rients' blogspot: The BIG thing about the editorial, though, is that while Mike, like any other fan of D&D, has edition preferences, he also gets the point that sometimes it's better to attend to similarities, stuff we share. I fully share that sentiment but, unlike him, don't see how that should stop us from engaging in heated discussion on editions' differences. It's precisely been because of many a heated discussion on editions' differences that my appreciation of each of them deepened. To create a "Rally Point" (to use a WAR'ism) for all D&D fans - well, that's a tall order. It would have to synch up with actual stuff produced by WotC, and short of Steve Winter's [I]extraordinary[/I] columns ("D&D Alumni") I don't really see anything to fit the bill. [/QUOTE]

Verification