Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Kzach" data-source="post: 5674921" data-attributes="member: 56189">That's actually not an argument, that's a statement.Which begs the question, why is it bad?As far as the core rules go, I have everything I need in the PHB 1 and DMG 1 (and I can print the errata to include in it if I want). So for prosperity's sake, if I desperately want to cling to 4e once 5e comes out, I still can.Maybe that's the problem here? I don't tend to cling to the past. I like to embrace new things, including new editions of D&D. I *never* reference any of my old D&D books for rules. I do, however, reference them over and over and over again for fluff. But then again, I have no desire to play 1e or 2e or 3e.I suppose for people who like to stick to a particular era there's some use to keeping crunch. But even then, if you were to pick up an AD&D 2e game, would you be using every single source of crunch for the game that existed back in the day (assuming you had access to it all still)? Or would you just be using the core products?Gods, the thought of going through Player's Options and Handbooks again... arrrrrrrrrrrgh!Kzach runs screaming.</blockquote>