Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="delericho" data-source="post: 5630803" data-attributes="member: 22424">4e doesn't meet my needs. Not at all. Therefore, there's a very long list of things that I believe could be improved, including some of the fundamental assumptions of the system.A more specifc, less-flexible system is great for you, provided it meets your needs out of the box. But that's only ever going to be true for a very small minority of groups; for most, at least some measure of adaptation is going to be necessary.For anything but the most minor levels of adaptation, a much more flexible system is better.If we're talking evolution, then any step away from flexibility, and thus the ability to adapt, is a step in the wrong direction.D&D is, and always has been, a broad church. It's the lingua franca of RPGs. And that's a large part of its appeal - player A may prefer system A, and player B may prefer system B, but if player A hates system B, and vice versa, at least they're able to compromise on D&D (in most cases).By locking the game down into the specific d20 form, WotC reduced that ability to compromise. By locking it down even further into 4e, they reduced it still further. There is a very large group of players who simply will not play 4e, just as there is a very large who will not play Pathfinder. And that is not a good thing.</blockquote>