Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="thecasualoblivion" data-source="post: 4833462" data-attributes="member: 59096">Trashing of everything old school? Isn't that a bit extreme. As for the base being split, you say that as if it was a bad thing. I have been a fan of, and a player of the &quot;stereotypical&quot; D&amp;D game since 2E. From where I was standing, I found the 3E/OGL revolution lacking. While 3E tried to be a toolbox, and tried to bring more under the banner of D&amp;D than at any time before, the core D&amp;D game was watered down. It was watered down by mechanics so complex and fragile they broke down if you stressed them too hard, and it was watered down by too many damn books from too many publishers. There is a different kind of fragmentation, and that is when your game spreads out so thin that the D&amp;D ceases to really mean anything anymore. I never argued that 4E was inclusive. In fact, I'd say the opposite. What I would say would be that moving away from inclusion was the correct choice for the game.30-40% conversion rate? Are you being serious? After a little over a year, I'd say the conversion rate is about 75%-80%, with new and returning players more than making up the difference. Thats all speculation, but 30-40% is a bit ridiculous.As I said before, this have it your way approach waters down the game. 3E/OGL was ambitious and inclusive to the point it was harming the core game. Running a stereotypical D&amp;D game became a struggle.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="thecasualoblivion, post: 4833462, member: 59096"] Trashing of everything old school? Isn't that a bit extreme. As for the base being split, you say that as if it was a bad thing. I have been a fan of, and a player of the "stereotypical" D&D game since 2E. From where I was standing, I found the 3E/OGL revolution lacking. While 3E tried to be a toolbox, and tried to bring more under the banner of D&D than at any time before, the core D&D game was watered down. It was watered down by mechanics so complex and fragile they broke down if you stressed them too hard, and it was watered down by too many damn books from too many publishers. There is a different kind of fragmentation, and that is when your game spreads out so thin that the D&D ceases to really mean anything anymore. I never argued that 4E was inclusive. In fact, I'd say the opposite. What I would say would be that moving away from inclusion was the correct choice for the game. 30-40% conversion rate? Are you being serious? After a little over a year, I'd say the conversion rate is about 75%-80%, with new and returning players more than making up the difference. Thats all speculation, but 30-40% is a bit ridiculous. As I said before, this have it your way approach waters down the game. 3E/OGL was ambitious and inclusive to the point it was harming the core game. Running a stereotypical D&D game became a struggle. [/QUOTE]

Verification