Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Michael Morris" data-source="post: 3904733" data-attributes="member: 87">When 3e came out my house rules to change things or ban things from play went from 390 pages to 2 sentences.&nbsp; Now admittedly my setting has a lot of mechancial additions, but throughout the lifespan of 3e I didn't have to change anything - it worked perfectly.4e has me full of doubt. I don't want dragonborn or tieflings in my games. I don't like the idea of 30 spell levels.&nbsp; I will buy the core and see what's in it, but I don't know if I'll switch.&nbsp; I don't consider myself a grognard - my field of work is one where I must constantly embrace and make use of new ideas and concepts. But it also makes me wary of change for change's sake. Without seeing the whole document I cannot say for sure, but much of 4e's changes that have been revealed seem to have been done for their own sake, and not for any underlying need.Experience has taught me these are the worst sorts of changes. 4e seems to be full of them. I am worried. A failed 4e would be the most devastating blow WotC has dealt to the industry since their ill-advised Fallen Empires snafu (for those not familiar with Magic, in that incident WotC filled all the preorders for Fallen Empires to the surprise of store owners which hadn't been able to get their orders filled on prior sets. Many, many shops folded due to this mistake, and the fact that Fallen Empires is easily one of Magic's worst sets).WotC, for all their researching and studying, occasionally makes mistakes. They occasionally make big ones. For the sake of the hobby let's hope that this isn't one of them.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Michael Morris, post: 3904733, member: 87"] When 3e came out my house rules to change things or ban things from play went from 390 pages to 2 sentences. Now admittedly my setting has a lot of mechancial additions, but throughout the lifespan of 3e I didn't have to change anything - it worked perfectly. 4e has me full of doubt. I don't want dragonborn or tieflings in my games. I don't like the idea of 30 spell levels. I will buy the core and see what's in it, but I don't know if I'll switch. I don't consider myself a grognard - my field of work is one where I must constantly embrace and make use of new ideas and concepts. But it also makes me wary of change for change's sake. Without seeing the whole document I cannot say for sure, but much of 4e's changes that have been revealed seem to have been done for their own sake, and not for any underlying need. Experience has taught me these are the worst sorts of changes. 4e seems to be full of them. I am worried. A failed 4e would be the most devastating blow WotC has dealt to the industry since their ill-advised Fallen Empires snafu (for those not familiar with Magic, in that incident WotC filled all the preorders for Fallen Empires to the surprise of store owners which hadn't been able to get their orders filled on prior sets. Many, many shops folded due to this mistake, and the fact that Fallen Empires is easily one of Magic's worst sets). WotC, for all their researching and studying, occasionally makes mistakes. They occasionally make big ones. For the sake of the hobby let's hope that this isn't one of them. [/QUOTE]

Verification