Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ty" data-source="post: 3928648" data-attributes="member: 16824">Although I appreciate the fact that Mr. Mearls took the time to provide an answer to questions posed to him, I don't think I would annoint him as the savior of D&amp;D any time soon.&nbsp; I do take issue with one reason he implied for the rewrite:&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; &quot;And yes, we are telling people what they are supposed to do. If we get more people playing D&amp;D because of that, then we've succeeded.&quot;The struggle to bring new players into D&amp;D has been going on for a long time, well before Hasbro and WotC came into the picture.&nbsp; Each edition of the game has told people what to do to some extent and to varying degrees.&nbsp; There's nothing wrong with telling the players how the game is played or what they are supposed to do.&nbsp; I believe he is off base however, in telling the players the specific &quot;fluff&quot; of the game, (ahem, here's looking at you &quot;Golden Wyvern Adept&quot; and &quot;Points of Lights&quot; campaigns).&nbsp; That, simply, is my main beef with 4th Edition.&nbsp; It's telling me the fluff of how I can play the game and not just giving me the mechanics of how to play it.&nbsp; Mandated Crunch + Mandated Fluff = Bad in my book.&nbsp; I may as well play a video game. I can take a wait and see attitude with a revisions of the rules and evaluate them objectively.&nbsp; I lean against that approach when the game system is tied to a specific &quot;world vision&quot; or &quot;campaign type.&quot;&nbsp; That's why I never got into Paranoia, Elric, Rifts, or Toon!.I wish 4th Edition well but it's not for me as it is currently being presented to us.&nbsp; Maybe I'll change my mind after we finish our 3.5.5 Edition campaign and I read the newest rulebooks.&nbsp; I don't believe a &quot;renaissance&quot; of D&amp;D is going to occur based solely upon the PnP version of the rules.&nbsp; If Mearls and co. wish to expand the D&amp;D market, it's got to be through marketing and brand identification; not simple rule rewrites.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ty, post: 3928648, member: 16824"] Although I appreciate the fact that Mr. Mearls took the time to provide an answer to questions posed to him, I don't think I would annoint him as the savior of D&D any time soon. I do take issue with one reason he implied for the rewrite: "And yes, we are telling people what they are supposed to do. If we get more people playing D&D because of that, then we've succeeded." The struggle to bring new players into D&D has been going on for a long time, well before Hasbro and WotC came into the picture. Each edition of the game has told people what to do to some extent and to varying degrees. There's nothing wrong with telling the players how the game is played or what they are supposed to do. I believe he is off base however, in telling the players the specific "fluff" of the game, (ahem, here's looking at you "Golden Wyvern Adept" and "Points of Lights" campaigns). That, simply, is my main beef with 4th Edition. It's telling me the fluff of how I can play the game and not just giving me the mechanics of how to play it. Mandated Crunch + Mandated Fluff = Bad in my book. I may as well play a video game. I can take a wait and see attitude with a revisions of the rules and evaluate them objectively. I lean against that approach when the game system is tied to a specific "world vision" or "campaign type." That's why I never got into Paranoia, Elric, Rifts, or Toon!. I wish 4th Edition well but it's not for me as it is currently being presented to us. Maybe I'll change my mind after we finish our 3.5.5 Edition campaign and I read the newest rulebooks. I don't believe a "renaissance" of D&D is going to occur based solely upon the PnP version of the rules. If Mearls and co. wish to expand the D&D market, it's got to be through marketing and brand identification; not simple rule rewrites. [/QUOTE]

Verification