Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ryndal" data-source="post: 4722088" data-attributes="member: 76999">At that point, they should have accepted the necessity of incremental revision and aging as opposed to classic versioning, and will introduce some appropriate language, similar to &quot;blocks&quot; in Magic.&nbsp; They might divide material along tier lines, for example, and one year, replace heroic, next year paragon, and the next year epic, and then start the cycle over again.&nbsp; Or something like that.&nbsp;However, they'd better be thinking about it now.&nbsp; Because the longer they let the mess fester without preparing for it, the worse the transition will be.&nbsp; On the other hand, if they are already planning for a Revised Player's Handbook/Dungeonmaster's Guide for 2011 say, they can lay the groundwork for incremental revisions now, and make the transition far more pleasant for everyone.&nbsp;Tier-based products might be a good first step.&nbsp;Smeelbo</blockquote>While I understand what is being said here - the underlying assumption is the many players will try and &quot;break&quot; the game through obscure and esoteric combinations.&nbsp; Undoubtedly, many players will try this.&nbsp; Many, however, will not. They will play the game for fun and not to &quot;win&quot; the game. My current 4th ed campaign features 3 relatively new players and I assure you they are not looking to min/max or &quot;break&quot; the game.&nbsp; I am sure there are others in similar situations.&nbsp;I was a big MtG player at one time. The goal in tournament MtG was indeed to break the game.&nbsp; Not everyone played tournament MtG, however. The game can be played as a pure social game. As can 4th ed. D/D. I would hazard a guess that there are more serious gamers visiting these boards as opposed to social players.Ryndal[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE="Ryndal, post: 4722088, member: 76999"] At that point, they should have accepted the necessity of incremental revision and aging as opposed to classic versioning, and will introduce some appropriate language, similar to[I] "blocks"[/I] in Magic. They might divide material along tier lines, for example, and one year, replace heroic, next year paragon, and the next year epic, and then start the cycle over again. Or something like that. However, they'd better be thinking about it now. Because the longer they let the mess fester without preparing for it, the worse the transition will be. On the other hand, if they are already planning for a [I]Revised Player's Handbook/Dungeonmaster's Guide[/I] for 2011 say, they can lay the groundwork for incremental revisions now, and make the transition far more pleasant for everyone. Tier-based products might be a good first step. [B]Smeelbo[/B][/quote] While I understand what is being said here - the underlying assumption is the many players will try and "break" the game through obscure and esoteric combinations. Undoubtedly, many players will try this. Many, however, will not. They will play the game for fun and not to "win" the game. My current 4th ed campaign features 3 relatively new players and I assure you they are not looking to min/max or "break" the game. I am sure there are others in similar situations. I was a big MtG player at one time. The goal in tournament MtG was indeed to break the game. Not everyone played tournament MtG, however. The game can be played as a pure social game. As can 4th ed. D/D. I would hazard a guess that there are more serious gamers visiting these boards as opposed to social players. Ryndal [/QUOTE]

Verification