Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Razuur" data-source="post: 5749237" data-attributes="member: 1997">Not sure I can agree with this.  It is more than simple rules - it is approach.I respect both games, and think that they both have their audiences for different reasons.  I refuse to believe that one is better than the other - it is subjective.  They both cater to different audiences and preferences.3e/3.5/Pathfinder is a flexible rules system.  You could do SO much with it, as evidenced by the d20 boom.  It was a kitchen sink type system that allowed the users to tailor it to thier own game.  "Do with it what you will", here is a rule for everything, and it is a bit complicated, but it is your game to tinker with.  Pretty much any style of fantasy could be recreated in 3e.  We had Medieval Handbooks to Eberron.  It also oes not require minis or grids or battlemaps.  3e allowed for a very diverse crowd of diverse styles.   Hence how we hand a ton of different fantasy settings for 3e (Medieval, Oathbound, Eberron, Midnight, Conan, FR, Dragonlance, Nyambe, AE, etc), and also modern, spy, horror, sci fi, etc.  It was a very flexible system.  It attracted a very diverse and broad crowd.  Something there for everyone.4e is a specific implementation targeted to a particular audience - the tactical rules folks and MMO crowd.  In is a toolkit of a differnt kind desinged to make GMing easy, and playing familiar.  But Smeone decided -> "This is DnD".  Certain core assumptions are made - battlemaps required, classes are X, this power does Y.  And the "flavor" is really defined.  Really great for those that love that particular flavor.  But if it doesn't work with your setting, you don't accept the flavor, or the basic underlying assumptions about how classes work - then you go elsewhere.  It does what it does REALLY well, but at the cost of diversity.Now this is not an edition flame war (and I won't argue about it - they are both really well designed games), I think that both 4e and 3e/Pathfinder have their crowds and both are happy in their camp.  People tend to be in one camp or the other - kitchen sink or core audience.So when 5e comes along, I think it will be the most successful if it reaches the WIDEST audience possible.  But I think they will keep it more niche, which will make certain folks happy, but exclude many others.So I think it will have to be some trick to unite these very diverse groups.  To be honest I am not sure if it is even possible, based on the the polarity of the positions.  Add to that the fact that with the internet, older editions need never die, they can constantly change form and evolve.  I am not sure if the fracture is "recoverable".Thing is, I am not even sure I want to "reunite" under a 5e fold.  I hear all of these discussions about 5e, and they scare me a bit.  4e broke my heart and left me behind - But I accepted it despite being really sad that DnD no longer worked for us.  I wandered aimlessly until Pathfinder fell in my lap, and now I am all settled, and I am afraid that another edition will bring about muddy bloody the waters again.  Cries about those that love it, cries (from 2 editions now claiming they were left behind).  And where there was one, and then two, now there will be three - all bickering and arguing about which is the better system.I just want things to stay the way they are for a while.  Each happily in their own camps, playing and having fun.  I am not ready for another edition war.Maybe DnD broke up for a reason.  Maybe it just isn't the generic fantasy game it used to be?  Maybe DnD only worked in an age where there was no internet and everybody just kind of made it theirs.I don't know.  You 4e-ers, I am really happy for you that it works for you.  Now that I have Pathfinder, I am satiated and feel I have a "home".Did I mention that 5e scares me?</blockquote>

Verification