Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Beginning of the End" data-source="post: 5440199" data-attributes="member: 55271">Of course they did. You'll note I didn't say "nobody had these problems". I said the exact opposite of that.But if everybody had the problems you had with 3E, where did all the Pathfinder players come from?And let's be honest here: Not everybody who's chosen to stick with 3.5E (or migrate to Pathfinder) thinks it to be some sort of perfect game. The game has problems. Problems which can very easily become systemic once you reach the teens.But there are two questions here--One: Was it necessary for 4E to abandon the core gameplay of D&D in order to solve those problems?Two: Was the player base's dissatisfaction with those problems sufficiently large and sufficiently universal to make abandoning the core gameplay of D&D palatable for them?I think the answer to #1 is, "No."And I think there's plenty of evidence, including Pathfinder's success, to suggest that the answer to #2 is also, "No."I think that a 4E that was more radical than Pathfinder in solving some of the fundamental problems with the game (particularly at higher levels) WITHOUT sacrificing the core gameplay of D&D from 1974-2008 would have been more successful than either Pathfinder or 4E is today.</blockquote>