Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Pilgrim" data-source="post: 5658363" data-attributes="member: 6680799">I was implying that WotC shot itself in the foot when it tossed aside a game system that a LOT of people still enjoy playing. The way I see it, WotC could have had the best of both worlds, but holding on to both 3.5 and what we now know as 4E, while calling both of them D&D the RPG would have made little sense as it would have quickly confused players as to which game they should be playing.WotC could have just as easily kept D&D 3.5 (as the RPG they already had) while taking the D&D Minis product line and making that their flag ship for the new combat system we see in 4E. Had they done so, they could have possibly reaped the rewards of both the 3.5 fans while at the same time drawing in more players who enjoy less of the RPG side of gaming through the combat system of 4E by playing just D&D Minis. Once again I never said, though you're inferring, 3.5 is a better RPG than 4th.And, like I stated previously, you can take the opinion that 4E is a better game for RPing that 3.5 if you like, but RP has always been disassociated from the rules and mechanics, so the argument is null. There again, if you want to argue that RP is associated with the rules and mechanics and that 4E does it better than 3.5 or PF, then I'd suggest starting another thread, since that has been the rub of many players who despise 4E and made the claim that it isn't a good RPG due to the fact that it is designed like an MMO video game, is a combat centered game, is designed with RP as an after thought, so on and so forth.</blockquote>

Verification