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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Nymrohd" data-source="post: 5086963" data-attributes="member: 59126">4E has certainly surpassed former editions in one field; rules updates. They are frequent, the designers have an ear to the community to eliminate imbalance or make underused content up to standards. Yet anyone would admit that there are changes that would make the system better but cannot be made simply because there is only so much of the rules you can update without essentially revising them.The problem here is, the click-and-mortar nature of D&D currently. The rules are still bound to books. For most of us, not having rows of D&D books in our libraries, or an entire column of them, would probably be the greatest deviation from the system that be possible. And completely dropping the book lines would be a major wound for the FLGs and whatever that entails in attracting new customers. Yet what would the advantages be?For starters, the designers would be able to make sweeping changes without changing the structure or the edition. Check any MMORPG; they can and do change the rules dramatically, with expansion pacs easily being revision or even new editions of their rule systems. Yet the changes are seamless, automatically applied. With tools like the Compendium, the CB and the Adventure Tools, it should be possible in the near future to allow for such flexibility of design for D&D itself.Moreover I think that such a model would hinder segmentation of the player base (at least after several outraged players dumped D&D here and then if it happened). With no investment in physical books that become outdated or heavily changed when a pass at those rules takes place, and with those rules no longer an actual product since they would be replaced, I think people would be far less likely to leave the core.I understand this sounds like a huge change to what D&D is now for most of us. I am simply asking, would anyone else see this as a good idea?</blockquote>

Verification