NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 3745209" data-attributes="member: 18280">Discussing the things that don't work well with a game you enjoy isn't, IMHO, "bashing their own game".  It is a necessary part of the process of making it better.  It was part of the process of 1e that made getting each issue of Dragon, with its varient rules, so worthwhile.  New ideas were touted, designers admitted that things didn't work as well as they had hoped (and often suggested improvements!) and there was a gradual evolution of design.  Eventually, this evolution culminated in new books.You can see a similar thing in the 3e UA, where designers describe their house rules and why they use them.IMHO, the only "weird doublethink" happens when (1) you declare that aspects X, Y, and Z are a clear improvement over their predecessors, (2) never vary from that declaration, and then (3) change said aspects back toward their predecessors while (4) declaring them a clear improvement over the previous version that was itself a clear improvement over what you are going back toward.Overall, I think that there is a lot to be interested in in the bits of 4e that they are showing us -- and I certainly didn't expect to feel that way.  I expected 4e to be 3.X TO THE MAX!!! when it seems instead to be at least partially a pulling back from 3.x toward earlier design philosophies.Of course, WotC might have more credibility if the rumours of 4e were not being vehemently denied at the same time that the announcement was being prepared.RC</blockquote>

Verification