Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pawsplay" data-source="post: 4938899" data-attributes="member: 15538">Things that are new are exciting because they are new, but something old and refined tends to be better at what it does. D&amp;D 3e and 4e do different things, so it's not a given one is preferable to the other based on quality. But I think it's fair to say 4e is very similar to 3.0 in that it broke new ground, and consequently discovered a fair amount of ironing out to do. Provided the customer is already satisfied with an existing edition, then, yes, a new edition does not need to be all that different. Obviously, though, a market was found for a 4e-type game.Personally, I feel RPGs are so design intensive I am inclined to say, If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Even when people have very strong complaints, it is often easy to mollify them with incremental fixes. For instance, people thought 3.5 fighters were a little weak. After the PHBII and the Book of Nine Swords, there were numerous options for bringing them up to speed. Monsters too complex? The last run of 3.5 monsters looked very much like 4e monsters; clear focus, a handful of signature abilities, and ready-to-use. Are Pathfinder monsters still too complex to build on the fly? It is a simple matter for Paizo or a 3PP to whip up a book of intentionally simple monsters with worked out advancement schemes.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pawsplay, post: 4938899, member: 15538"] Things that are new are exciting because they are new, but something old and refined tends to be better at what it does. D&D 3e and 4e do different things, so it's not a given one is preferable to the other based on quality. But I think it's fair to say 4e is very similar to 3.0 in that it broke new ground, and consequently discovered a fair amount of ironing out to do. Provided the customer is already satisfied with an existing edition, then, yes, a new edition does not need to be all that different. Obviously, though, a market was found for a 4e-type game. Personally, I feel RPGs are so design intensive I am inclined to say, If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Even when people have very strong complaints, it is often easy to mollify them with incremental fixes. For instance, people thought 3.5 fighters were a little weak. After the PHBII and the Book of Nine Swords, there were numerous options for bringing them up to speed. Monsters too complex? The last run of 3.5 monsters looked very much like 4e monsters; clear focus, a handful of signature abilities, and ready-to-use. Are Pathfinder monsters still too complex to build on the fly? It is a simple matter for Paizo or a 3PP to whip up a book of intentionally simple monsters with worked out advancement schemes. [/QUOTE]

Verification