Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Geron Raveneye" data-source="post: 3752565" data-attributes="member: 2268">Yep, you do...which is to be expected, since it's all dependent on the &quot;eye of the beholder&quot;. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> The same goes for what's an improvement and what not. Otherwise, we'd not have a heap of endless arguments on ENWorld alone about the merits and flaws of some things 3E instituted. <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/laugh.png"&nbsp; class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":lol:" title="Laughing&nbsp; &nbsp; :lol:" data-shortname=":lol:" /> Note that I'm not saying 4E isn't an improvement. It might well be. More likely, it will be an improvement in some areas, a complete change in others, and will create at least as many divergent opinions on every detail as 3E did back in its day. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> What I'm saying is that the first bit of advertisement I got gave me a bad impression of the marketing scheme for 4E, and that simply colors my perceptions of the same. And just because the designers show a lot of game designer enthusiasm for the rules they currently design doesn't mean they can't tread on some toes with the way they express it, either. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />And to be honest, in some parts I'd prefer it if they simply came out and said &quot;We're not making D&amp;D better, we're simply going to make it different than 3E&quot;, because that's clearly what they are doing with some of the things, and let judgement if it's &quot;better&quot; or not come from the customer base. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Geron Raveneye, post: 3752565, member: 2268"] Yep, you do...which is to be expected, since it's all dependent on the "eye of the beholder". :) The same goes for what's an improvement and what not. Otherwise, we'd not have a heap of endless arguments on ENWorld alone about the merits and flaws of some things 3E instituted. :lol: Note that I'm not saying 4E isn't an improvement. It might well be. More likely, it will be an improvement in some areas, a complete change in others, and will create at least as many divergent opinions on every detail as 3E did back in its day. :) What I'm saying is that the first bit of advertisement I got gave me a bad impression of the marketing scheme for 4E, and that simply colors my perceptions of the same. And just because the designers show a lot of game designer enthusiasm for the rules they currently design doesn't mean they can't tread on some toes with the way they express it, either. ;) And to be honest, in some parts I'd prefer it if they simply came out and said "We're not making D&D better, we're simply going to make it different than 3E", because that's clearly what they are doing with some of the things, and let judgement if it's "better" or not come from the customer base. :) [/QUOTE]

Verification