Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mercule" data-source="post: 5927168" data-attributes="member: 5100">In this case, it's because looking at the rules made me think &quot;this could work&quot; but it wasn't until I'd played the session that I was struck by &quot;this really feels like D&amp;D&quot;.Because I wanted to see whether the prior edition that most defines D&amp;D to you has an impact on whether the play test felt right or if WotC had actually pulled off a unification.So far, the results are generally in line with what I expected. It's heavily favored by those who define D&amp;D based on AD&amp;D, and split elsewhere. Right now, those to whom 4e == D&amp;D are more positive than I expected. And the 3e/OGL crowd are, too (I expected a slant, just not as much as the AD&amp;D group). The real surprise, though, is the lack of love from the BECMI players, which I almost didn't break out because I figured they'd parallel the AD&amp;D group.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mercule, post: 5927168, member: 5100"] In this case, it's because looking at the rules made me think "this could work" but it wasn't until I'd played the session that I was struck by "this [u]really[/u] feels like D&D". Because I wanted to see whether the prior edition that most defines D&D to you has an impact on whether the play test felt right or if WotC had actually pulled off a unification. So far, the results are generally in line with what I expected. It's heavily favored by those who define D&D based on AD&D, and split elsewhere. Right now, those to whom 4e == D&D are more positive than I expected. And the 3e/OGL crowd are, too (I expected a slant, just not as much as the AD&D group). The real surprise, though, is the lack of love from the BECMI players, which I almost didn't break out because I figured they'd parallel the AD&D group. [/QUOTE]

Verification