Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="TheAuldGrump" data-source="post: 5799442" data-attributes="member: 6957">It is impossible to overly nerdify kids. <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/angel.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":angel:" title="Angel    :angel:" data-shortname=":angel:" />I am in a similar position - I had left D&D and was brought back by 3e. Then 4e drove me away again, but Pathfinder was available for me to enjoy.The more 5e resembles 4e the less likely that I will be to ever play it. It sounds like the more it resembles 3.X the less likely you are to play it.So yes, divisive - whether you like 4e and hate 3.X or hate 4e and like 3.X then you are on one side or another of that divide.The folks that like both.... Well, they are the lucky ones. They will likely enjoy 5e as well, regardless of how much you or I like or dislike the game.But I think that the split in the market shows that 4e was not as all encompassing as WotC might have hoped, and the success of Pathfinder shows that not all of the innovations of 4e were successful. [Insert Innovation/Engineering/Zoology quote here]They may have brought you back into the fold, but they lost more people than they gained. Again, I largely blame their marketing more than their rules. I may dislike the rules, but it was the presentation and marketing that made me hate the game before it hit bookstore shelves.The two times I tried the game merely confirmed my dislike of the rules - and unlike any edition since OD&D I had no urge to run the danged thing.Your arguments are largely cogent, even when I disagree with them, but there are others (on both sides, to be fair) that will make blanket statements about [insert game here] that merely further the divide.Some are on this very thread. (Time never matters my sweet aunt Sally!)The Auld Grump</blockquote>

Verification