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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mallus" data-source="post: 5708426" data-attributes="member: 3887">I'm not sure how WotC's revival of the moribund D&D franchise with the release of 3e --a fairly radical departure from the AD&D/2e framework-- can rightly be seen as "digging their own grave". As for the release of 4e... well, it was a failure only in the sense it wasn't as big a success as 3e. I believe it still made money, it certainly has its fans, and it represented a bold, and IMHO interesting take on the game. But I don't want to get into edition-war sniping... and I don't certainly agree with all of WotC's choices, but I think think overall they've done well, and their biggest problems are related to their size, costs, and market expectations, not to the design choices/product lines. Yes, and I disagree with that. A healthy gaming community plays the games that meet it's needs, with people playing what they want to play. At present, that means the D&D community is effectively playing several different, though related games. Equating "health" with a lack of choice seems, I don't know... old-school Soviet, perhaps? I brought up the prevalence of house-rules and game hybridization to stress the point the D&D community was never all that unified when you looked at what was really happening at the table. One: I have. And it's fine. People have been arguing over taste since the invention of hobbies (which I believe dates back to the move away from the reliance on subsistence agriculture <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    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />). Two: I think the "divided community" thing is grossly exaggerated. And fandom/hobby community will have its factions. You could see it as a sign of the communities health that it has such, ahem, involved participants wanting to engage in, ahem, spirited disagreements.Three: I think the whole "my investment in time and money being invalidated" argument is, well, crap. Most gamers I know like new rules, new games, new gaming experiences in general. They enjoy new product lines. It gives them something to buy <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    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />. And the ones who don't simply stick to the systems/experiences they like, without any attendant feeling of invalidation. Now people online... well, like they say, the Internet was created for pornography, cat photos, and vitriolic arguments. Four: I'm afraid, in the end, this all boils down to "I want the community to like the things I like, and play the I want to play". I understand the sentiment, especially for people who don't live in areas rich in gaming opportunities, but at the same time I don't have much sympathy.I've got an extremely... idiosyncratic take on D&D, as anyone who read the Story Hour based on my old 3e campaign, or listened to me describe our 4e game and its PCs, can attest to. This gives me a certain perspective. I can't expect the rest of the community to share my tastes. I can only be happy (and thankful) when I find people who do, at least enough so we can get together every few weeks.</blockquote>

Verification