Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Luce" data-source="post: 5721790" data-attributes="member: 29760">The way I see it edition wars are in part a competition over limited resources. There are only so many players out there. If more of those played in a way liked by one the more likely to be able to find a group/game to play with. Also while it is true that being out of print does not stop existing players from continuing , such situation makes it harder to recruit new (younger) players. Unless you happen to "gro" your nards. I mean catch them young and mold them. To me one of the great advantages D&D has is the amount of support it gets. Lets face it, not everyone starts rpg-ing as part of existing, experienced group. Sometimes it falls to a new GM to run the game for a group of his peers.While many RPG have an introductory adventures in the main books, no other (that I have seen) has as much volume and variety of support. This allows new Gm and their group to ease into the game, experiment and find their style. [Since I like the previous editions as well I hope old school clones and Pathfinder to prosper. A discussion if this will hurt 4e sales or split further the fan base is a topic for another discussion. ]Yet another thing is that people tend to internalize. If one likes edition X and another is making disparaging comments about that  edition, well the first one feel personally attacked and respond correspondingly.Other reasons people do  not see eye to eye is changes in game theory. The concept of balance and RAW had shifted to my experience. Or I can say I play 2ed by RAW, and that is make and change rules as it makes my game group experience better.  And that leads us to the point of personal preferences (and the difficulty of expressing them well enough for everyone to understand the logic, motivation and circumstances for having them in the first place)Lets say I make a statement to the effect "I do not kill my players." It will generate a debate. If I clarify a bit more  like " It does not mean that I never put them in danger or hold back the challenges, but give them a chance to retreat if they choose. The players are either not aware of my position on this or are suspending their disbelief and act appropriately in character. It works for my group." Hmm, I bit less controversial but still many will have a different experience/preference.To take it further lets say  "I have a group of three storytellers,  one actor/exprorer and one thinker. Many of the fights are optional in favor of in character rp resolution. I try to give my players a chance to run and fight another day if they inevitably run into a situation over their heads due to mischance. So far there have been no PC deaths." The above is less broad brushed situation and even those who disagree mostly will "live and let live". The problem is it is very difficult to convey years of personal experiences in just a few lines.</blockquote>

Verification