Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Beginning of the End" data-source="post: 5440500" data-attributes="member: 55271">You seem to have read the first three words of the question and then skipped the rest of it.That sounds weird. Let's give it a try:&quot;Was it necessary for Monopoly to abandon the core gameplay of D&amp;D in order to solve the problems of D&amp;D 3.5E?&quot;No? I dunno. I mean, the question sounds like complete nonsense. Maybe you just meant roleplaying games.&quot;Was it necessary for Burning Empires to abandon the core gameplay of D&amp;D in order to solve the problems of D&amp;D 3.5E?&quot;I guess if I squint really hard I can almost have that one make sense. Although I guess BE is more of a storytelling game, so let's try...&quot;Was it necessary for Ars Magica to abandon the core gameplay of D&amp;D in order to solve the problems of D&amp;D 3.5E?&quot;Nope. That's still nonsense. I'm going back to my theory that you didn't actually read past the third word of the question.Do you honestly feel that 4E enjoyed the same success rate in converting existing players of D&amp;D that 3E did in 2000? Or that BD&amp;D/AD&amp;D did in 1977-79? Because that's the entirely non-subjective standard I actually set in my posts.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Beginning of the End, post: 5440500, member: 55271"] You seem to have read the first three words of the question and then skipped the rest of it. That sounds weird. Let's give it a try: "Was it necessary for Monopoly to abandon the core gameplay of D&D in order to solve the problems of D&D 3.5E?" No? I dunno. I mean, the question sounds like complete nonsense. Maybe you just meant roleplaying games. "Was it necessary for Burning Empires to abandon the core gameplay of D&D in order to solve the problems of D&D 3.5E?" I guess if I squint really hard I can [I]almost[/I] have that one make sense. Although I guess BE is more of a storytelling game, so let's try... "Was it necessary for Ars Magica to abandon the core gameplay of D&D in order to solve the problems of D&D 3.5E?" Nope. That's still nonsense. I'm going back to my theory that you didn't actually read past the third word of the question. Do you honestly feel that 4E enjoyed the same success rate in converting existing players of D&D that 3E did in 2000? Or that BD&D/AD&D did in 1977-79? Because that's the entirely non-subjective standard I actually set in my posts. [/QUOTE]

Verification