What will happen to 4th edition?

[Bluenose]

I don't know about Shadowrun, so I'll take your word for it... I'm curious though how has it's fanbase done with these drastic changes? Has their fanbase grown or shrunk with them? And either way why do you think that is?

My familiarity with Shadowrun is limited, but Traveller had a very controversial edition (Traveller: the New Era aka TNE) which integrated the rules into the GDW house system used in their other games and made major changes to the Third Imperium setting. The mailing list rage was strong enough that there are still rules in place about it. And the fanbase ebbs and flows with different versions rather steadily, but Mongoose seem happy enough to keep publishing it and it's still the most popular SF RPG in the parts of Britain I know. It even had a really un-Traveller like D20 version, which personally I think helped unify the fanbase through derision as even TNE fans could hate on T20 and know others agreed with them.

 

[TrippyHippy]

My familiarity with Shadowrun is limited, but Traveller had a very controversial edition (Traveller: the New Era aka TNE) which integrated the rules into the GDW house system used in their other games and made major changes to the Third Imperium setting. The mailing list rage was strong enough that there are still rules in place about it. And the fanbase ebbs and flows with different versions rather steadily, but Mongoose seem happy enough to keep publishing it and it's still the most popular SF RPG in the parts of Britain I know. It even had a really un-Traveller like D20 version, which personally I think helped unify the fanbase through derision as even TNE fans could hate on T20 and know others agreed with them.

I think the major thing with Mongoose Traveller is that the creators went back to basics in it’s aims, and based it’s developments on the original Classic Traveller, rather than anything that came later. They broadened out the options in character generation, formulated the task system a bit, and opened the game up to new settings - but the rest was kept pretty much recognisably the same.

In some ways, it isn’t too different to what has been tried with D&D 5th edition.

 

[Bluenose]

I think the major thing with Mongoose Traveller is that the creators went back to basics in it’s aims, and based it’s developments on the original Classic Traveller, rather than anything that came later. They broadened out the options in character generation, formulated the task system a bit, and opened the game up to new settings - but the rest was kept pretty much recognisably the same.

In some ways, it isn’t too different to what has been tried with D&D 5th edition.

I'd say that Mongoose Traveller is largely based on 'late' Ckassic Traveller rather than original CT, but I take your point. I sometimes think the reaction to TNE depended a lot on whether the person involved was heavily invested in the OTU, the Third Imperium and it's neighbours, and was opposed to the changes in that. A valid comparison could be made with the "trashing" of the Forgotten Realms in 4e, and I suspect a lot of setting fans conflated dislike for the setting change with dislike for the rules-set; even more significant in the case of Traveller, since the OTU was "the setting" rather than one among many, even though I am quite sure that most people primarily used the rules for their own setting ideas.

 

[billd91]

I'd say that Mongoose Traveller is largely based on 'late' Ckassic Traveller rather than original CT, but I take your point. I sometimes think the reaction to TNE depended a lot on whether the person involved was heavily invested in the OTU, the Third Imperium and it's neighbours, and was opposed to the changes in that. A valid comparison could be made with the "trashing" of the Forgotten Realms in 4e, and I suspect a lot of setting fans conflated dislike for the setting change with dislike for the rules-set; even more significant in the case of Traveller, since the OTU was "the setting" rather than one among many, even though I am quite sure that most people primarily used the rules for their own setting ideas.

I think a lot of people weren't necessarily keen on the ongoing developments in the Third Imperium before New Era either. The civil war had its detractors too. It is true that it was recognizably the Third Imperium, but if someone really dropped TNE mainly because of the setting, I'd suspect they had been increasingly discontented with the changes ongoing in the setting anyway and TNE was the last straw.

I ditched TNE not just because of the post-virus setting, but because of the changes in rules and the changes in the whole "voice" of the game. The tone really changed between the MegaTraveller and TNE editions. That, the changes in rules, and the setting were like an unholy trifecta of turning off the old fans. And it lost them their best 3rd party supporter, Digest Group Publications, as well. Needless to say, I saw alarming parallels 15 years later...

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Why can't I create a class ability nullifier zone in any version of D&D? 5e: No class features work in this room... that was pretty easy...

You're trying to trivialize my point into non-existence but it won't work. You know very well what I'm talking about. All the dozens of feats, items, powers, etc that reference the class power system as a general tool and use it to provide general rules that can apply to any class. For example the 4e MCing system (albeit it was a weak option that few people used, but in rules terms it is quite elegant and has none of the problems that the 3e and probably the 5e system have). Beyond that there are many feats and items that store power uses, expend power uses, exchange one power for another power, etc. The whole skill powers system is a great example. None of those could exist in the same balanced form in 5e. I'm not saying you 'cannot possibly reproduce the same thing' but it is going to be a lot less elegant and require a specific rule for each class since they have basically nothing in common.

I never made the claim that any other edition was simpler. I'm asking you whether you were speaking to powers being simpler or the basic rules being simpler... why not just answer the question? See this is one of those things that happens alot in 4e discussions and perpetuates edition warring, let's just discuss 4e on it's own merits. I think it's powers are fiddly , do you?

And I answered your question. Its no more or less fiddly than any other edition of D&D. That's the answer. There's no absolute scale of fiddliness that can be applied. What is the unit of fiddliness, the Goldberg? Its a nonsensical question when you try to ask it like that.

If it's something the king would never do (give you his kingdom) it would auto-fail... If it's something that is clearly beneficial for the king then he auto-succeeds, otherwise...

1. I'd assign a DC from the general difficulty table to have the music influence the king

2. I would use the King's Insight (+roll) as the contested roll to persuade him... the king gets adv if it's not necessarily in the best interests of his own goals or disadv if it's more favorable to his own goals.

3. Have the bard roll a d20 charisma check with performance/instrument prof bonus vs. the music DC and if successful get advantage to influence the king, if failed no advantage and I'd also houserule a 1 gives disadvantage.

4. Have the Bard make a Cha(persuasion) roll contested by the King's Wis(Insight) roll (taking into account the previous steps for adv/disadv) to determine the resolution.

Of course another way would be for the DM to assign a general DC and allow the Bard to use persuasion/perform or musical instrument proficiency to roll greater than to influence the King...

Or The DM could use the kings passive Insight instead of rolling...

See that's flexibility to me... I know how I would do it but there are tons of ways others may prefer to do it... and IMO that's a good thing.

So your answer is there actually is no procedure that exists in the 5e rules. I'm not asking this to find out if there is SOME WAY you can arrange to roll dice, I'm asking because there are rules that don't even make sense in 5e. What is the use of a Tool Proficiency when there are skills that cover the same thing? Nobody can even answer this basic question.

And how is this 'more flexible' than "The DM narrates a series of events and the players describe their action, making skill checks as necessary, with the results determining the next step in the narrative until they achieve either a success total or a failure total." For that matter the exact same sequence of things you describe in your 5e example can happen in a 4e game. There's no 'added flexibility', there's just added befuddlement on the part of a lot of DM's and players who are right now filling threads over on the 5e forum trying to figure how the heck a bard works.

Tell me what the definition for hit points is in 4e... is it the same definition for all characters? Now how you choose to interpret them, reskin them, etc. is on you but the book has a particular definition of hit points that applies to all... powers are different depending upon their source, keywords, etc.

No no no you don't get it turn it around and try to usurp MY position. I asserted that HP is a common mechanic across all classes. If you are now agreeing that this is a good thing then again you have to give credence to common mechanics! And yes, in 4e a wizard's hit points don't necessarily represent the same thing as the fighter's hit points do. I ran a 4e wizard who's hit points were narrated as magical protections that he wove about himself that gave up their energy to protect his body. The fighter consistently narrated his as luck, and the rogue narrated hers as slowly being worn out by constantly dodging deadly blows. I don't deny that there's some common factors there, but there are common factors in powers too.

So now we've shifted the goalposts to only first level... as for a poll it doesn't matter what most would enjoy if you can grab a larger market and those people who want to can still start at a higher level
why not do it?

I haven't shifted any goal posts. A level 2 2e fighter with a good roll for his level 2 hit points and a CON bonus actually IS getting into the range of 4e level 1 PC hit points, but I never said a thing about level 1 only. Still the general issue is that other editions give low level PCs too few resources to pull off anything much without every little step of the way constantly being a lethal danger. Its OK, but it does rapidly get tedious and its nice when the game CAN open up a different mode of play. If you want gritty lethal play you can still get it, just traipse over to the 4th Core site and see what they've done. Its quite easy really.

Yeah and I saw just as many people including my own group invest time and money into 4e and still end up not liking the game... again anecdotal evidence and unsupported theories are well... anecdotal and unsupported.

I am not trying to tell you I know BETTER than you or anyone else. I'm just pointing out that there's a perfectly legitimate reason for people to like 4e, and that a lot of people in the community didn't give it a chance when they should have and that definitely hurt the whole game. Every piece of logic that works for your position works for mine as well, except I didn't spend the last 6 years ripping down anyone else's game.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Same here; I've never met anyone IRL who wants to play through the early might-as-well-be-apprentice levels. Well, I did have a DM who started his 4e campaign by having us make homebrewed 0-level PCs, but he wasn't playering through it with us. And if I had gamed with him after that, I'm sure he'd agree that it went horribly, for much the same reason that low level play outside of 4e can go horribly.

Likewise, I've never met a RL player who said "Ugh, powers? Can't I just roll a d20 and a damage die forever?" The 'fighters don't need nice things' is another sentiment that I've only seen come up on the forums, and even then it seems to be a theoretical world-sim concern rather than a concern resulting from actually playing the game.

Mind you, I'm sure there are a few of players out there who do want these things. But such people are outside of my experience.

Oh, I think they exist, and its perfectly possible to make some fun things happen in level 1 2e for instance. The question is, since its not the focus of the game why make the whole system at all levels pay for that experience when you can STILL recreate it even with 4e and not have to carry all the baggage around for the next 12 levels? Its NOT AT ALL HARD to construct incredibly lethal puzzle dungeons or have a bunch of gritty survival in your level 1 4e game. I can understand someone that wants to JUST play low level, and there are a few out there, just wanting to use one of the classic editions of D&D, basic is perfect for that for instance since it takes only 2 minutes to roll up a new PC. Honestly I don't think 5e would be a great game for that genre of play either. Its chargen is too involved. I don't want to be out of the action for 20 minutes every time I'm ganked at level 1, and unless you remove some of the healing rules it isn't THAT deadly either.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I'd say that Mongoose Traveller is largely based on 'late' Ckassic Traveller rather than original CT, but I take your point. I sometimes think the reaction to TNE depended a lot on whether the person involved was heavily invested in the OTU, the Third Imperium and it's neighbours, and was opposed to the changes in that. A valid comparison could be made with the "trashing" of the Forgotten Realms in 4e, and I suspect a lot of setting fans conflated dislike for the setting change with dislike for the rules-set; even more significant in the case of Traveller, since the OTU was "the setting" rather than one among many, even though I am quite sure that most people primarily used the rules for their own setting ideas.

My basic reaction when I saw Mongoose Traveller was "wow, that's pretty much verbatim right out of the original rules with material from Mercenary, etc added on and all polished a little bit". The same thing is pretty much true of T5 from what I can see (without being so vastly wealthy that I can afford to pay $108 for a copy!!!). I guess T5 goes a good bit further in adding new stuff to the game and making some embellishments to the original rules, but in either game it appears you could take old CT characters and basically just run them. You can probably use your old starships too.

Traveller is an odd game because it is both quite general in terms of its mechanics, you COULD use it for a lot of things, but at the same time it is really narrow in its application. All the material outside of the base mechanics is focused on one very niche sort of Sci-Fi universe and even with all the follow-on material the game fundamentally has never broadened its scope of play at all.

 

[Imaro]

You're trying to trivialize my point into non-existence but it won't work. You know very well what I'm talking about. All the dozens of feats, items, powers, etc that reference the class power system as a general tool and use it to provide general rules that can apply to any class. For example the 4e MCing system (albeit it was a weak option that few people used, but in rules terms it is quite elegant and has none of the problems that the 3e and probably the 5e system have). Beyond that there are many feats and items that store power uses, expend power uses, exchange one power for another power, etc. The whole skill powers system is a great example. None of those could exist in the same balanced form in 5e. I'm not saying you 'cannot possibly reproduce the same thing' but it is going to be a lot less elegant and require a specific rule for each class since they have basically nothing in common.

I feel like your point is trivial and virtually non-existent...

As far as multiclassing goes it still specifies what type of powers, in individual feats, can be swapped out (note feats not feat why do we need more than one if it can reference all powers without a more granular breakdown?) so how is this leveraging the power system in the way you claim? It is still differentiating at a more granular level than just power... which is exactly what you can do with class features...

As to feats can you give me some examples of feats that only reference power in a general sense because 4e is full of feats that reference powers with particular keywords, of particular classes, of certain sources... even individual powers so again I'm not seeing what you're claiming.

As to your claim about skill powers... why couldn't 5e implement special knacks you could use with training in particular skills, make availability dependent on character level and have them be select-able as long as you are proficient in the skill? What in 5e precludes a system like this? Your argument isn't making any sense.

Finally while 5e might require a rule for each class... 4e requires a a rule for at-wills, encounters, dailies, utilities... also for races, and may also need rules for different sources, keywords, etc. Also the individual powers themselves may have to be referenced since some rely on prerequisites everyone may not possess in order to actually work.

And I answered your question. Its no more or less fiddly than any other edition of D&D. That's the answer. There's no absolute scale of fiddliness that can be applied. What is the unit of fiddliness, the Goldberg? Its a nonsensical question when you try to ask it like that.

Ok, so how many classes, and races are exposed to not only the fiddliness of class abilities, racial abilities and feats but also powers? In previous editions it was only the caster classes that dealt with that level of fiddliness... yet in 4e Every class has to do it (and even the monsters). IMO, yeah that's an increase in the overall amount of fiddliness the game pushes onto it's players and DM...not equal. If you enjoy that more power to you, I'm not making a statement on whether it's good or bad but 4e definitely infuses it into the game more than any other edition.

EDIT: Of course in 5e I can choose to eliminate a wide swath of fiddliness by disallowing feats...and multiclassing, if I really want to.

So your answer is there actually is no procedure that exists in the 5e rules. I'm not asking this to find out if there is SOME WAY you can arrange to roll dice, I'm asking because there are rules that don't even make sense in 5e. What is the use of a Tool Proficiency when there are skills that cover the same thing? Nobody can even answer this basic question.

No my answer of how I would do it (which is what you asked) remains the same. As to your above question...because not everyone will have the skill but you may have tools that would help you even untrained to accomplish something... some tools are much more specific than the skills and thus you may be proficient in playing the flute but not proficient in the wider arena of performing... Or maybe you should clarify this question because I see a multitude of answers to it.

And how is this 'more flexible' than "The DM narrates a series of events and the players describe their action, making skill checks as necessary, with the results determining the next step in the narrative until they achieve either a success total or a failure total." For that matter the exact same sequence of things you describe in your 5e example can happen in a 4e game. There's no 'added flexibility', there's just added befuddlement on the part of a lot of DM's and players who are right now filling threads over on the 5e forum trying to figure how the heck a bard works.

Are those the Skill Challenge rules, yes they are... now refresh my memory how do I determine DC's by 4e rules in a SC? Does an NPC ever make an opposed roll in a SC per RAW?

I'm not going to address your second point because honestly I don't care, they'll figure out what works best for them and their group (like so many DM's and players before them) and that's how I prefer it. We don't all have to play the same way by the immutable RAW... and I'm good with that.

No no no you don't get it turn it around and try to usurp MY position. I asserted that HP is a common mechanic across all classes. If you are now agreeing that this is a good thing then again you have to give credence to common mechanics! And yes, in 4e a wizard's hit points don't necessarily represent the same thing as the fighter's hit points do. I ran a 4e wizard who's hit points were narrated as magical protections that he wove about himself that gave up their energy to protect his body. The fighter consistently narrated his as luck, and the rogue narrated hers as slowly being worn out by constantly dodging deadly blows. I don't deny that there's some common factors there, but there are common factors in powers too.

Dude we were never in disagreement about hit points... we were in disagreement about whether powers were a common mechanic that worked the same across all classes...

I haven't shifted any goal posts. A level 2 2e fighter with a good roll for his level 2 hit points and a CON bonus actually IS getting into the range of 4e level 1 PC hit points, but I never said a thing about level 1 only. Still the general issue is that other editions give low level PCs too few resources to pull off anything much without every little step of the way constantly being a lethal danger. Its OK, but it does rapidly get tedious and its nice when the game CAN open up a different mode of play. If you want gritty lethal play you can still get it, just traipse over to the 4th Core site and see what they've done. Its quite easy really.

If you want a more robust character to start with then play at a higher level... it's really simple and you don't have to depend on other people or another site to modify the game so you can do it... it's right there in the rules. It's funny that 4e went back and created rules for 0 level characters if those who wanted to play low level games is nearly non-existent but then again I don't know so unlike you I'll refrain from stating my opinions backed up with anecdotal evidence as fact.

I am not trying to tell you I know BETTER than you or anyone else. I'm just pointing out that there's a perfectly legitimate reason for people to like 4e, and that a lot of people in the community didn't give it a chance when they should have and that definitely hurt the whole game. Every piece of logic that works for your position works for mine as well, except I didn't spend the last 6 years ripping down anyone else's game.

Why should they have given it a chance? Seriously no one owed WotC or 4e anything. Honestly I regret having purchased all the 4e books I did, always trying to give it one more chance and never enjoying it as much as other games and some other editions. It was a waste of time and money for me and my group. If the game couldn't grab people or better yet was turning them away from even trying it... well maybe that speaks volumes about the game... just saying

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

I feel like your point is trivial and virtually non-existent...

What is your point, btw, if not to simply threadcrap? Not these little details you're quibbling over with Abdulalhazred; but your impetus for posting in this thread.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I feel like your point is trivial and virtually non-existent...

As far as multiclassing goes it still specifies what type of powers, in individual feats, can be swapped out (note feats not feat why do we need more than one if it can reference all powers without a more granular breakdown?) so how is this leveraging the power system in the way you claim? It is still differentiating at a more granular level than just power... which is exactly what you can do with class features...

As to feats can you give me some examples of feats that only reference power in a general sense because 4e is full of feats that reference powers with particular keywords, of particular classes, of certain sources... even individual powers so again I'm not seeing what you're claiming.

This is silly. The MC Power Swap feats all reference powers in a fully generic manner. In fact it is so fully generic that you can't use them with most E-classes because those classes broke the power progression! Its irrelevant that there are more than one of these feats, and the other BASE MC feats don't reference the power system at all particularly. So what? Lots of feats don't reference powers, news at eleven! lol.

There are other feats that also reference powers in general. There is the Skill Power feat for instance, and the Reserve Maneuver feat, and the various Martial 'swap a power' feats (which are limited to martial powers but still work with ALL martial classes). 4e is in fact blessed with quite a few of these things and I'm only skimming the surface, I'm sure there are plenty of others.

As to your claim about skill powers... why couldn't 5e implement special knacks you could use with training in particular skills, make availability dependent on character level and have them be select-able as long as you are proficient in the skill? What in 5e precludes a system like this? Your argument isn't making any sense.

Sure it is. The 4e Skill Power mechanism is quite elegant. It opens up additional build options to the player but adds no complexity to the character at all. They simply swap out an existing utility power slot to gain a skill-related power instead. This is very easy in 4e because every class has the same mix of utility powers. While I'm sure you can add on more things to 5e characters it isn't as elegant.

Finally while 5e might require a rule for each class... 4e requires a a rule for at-wills, encounters, dailies, utilities... also for races, and may also need rules for different sources, keywords, etc. Also the individual powers themselves may have to be referenced since some rely on prerequisites everyone may not possess in order to actually work.

Those are limitations that CAN be added to powers in order to allow for the existence of powers that might not play well with other elements due to balance mostly. I don't see how this is an issue or a criticism of the power system, since it is A) not a core aspect of it and B) every game has limitations. Nor are the rules for the different usages of powers in 4e a big deal. Heck, 5e has those AS WELL AS rules for each spell-casting class, and there are a hefty bunch of classes that have spells.

Ok, so how many classes, and races are exposed to not only the fiddliness of class abilities, racial abilities and feats but also powers? In previous editions it was only the caster classes that dealt with that level of fiddliness... yet in 4e Every class has to do it (and even the monsters). IMO, yeah that's an increase in the overall amount of fiddliness the game pushes onto it's players and DM...not equal. If you enjoy that more power to you, I'm not making a statement on whether it's good or bad but 4e definitely infuses it into the game more than any other edition.

Powers are no more complicated than the sorts of maneuvers and such that say 5e fighters have now. Nor were fighters exactly dirt simple in 3.x either with all the feats they had, the multiple attack rules, etc. Don't even TRY to tell me that most 4e characters are more complicated than 3.x characters except MAYBE at very low level, maybe, and a basic level 1 4e PC isn't exactly vastly complicated.

EDIT: Of course in 5e I can choose to eliminate a wide swath of fiddliness by disallowing feats...and multiclassing, if I really want to.

I'm not against that, but I'm not claiming superiority in every respect, are you? Honestly though I'm not exactly sure its superior. I could ignore skills in 4e too if I REALLY wanted. Its not marked out in a box that says 'remove this' though so score for presentation. I'm all for the concept anyway.

No my answer of how I would do it (which is what you asked) remains the same. As to your above question...because not everyone will have the skill but you may have tools that would help you even untrained to accomplish something... some tools are much more specific than the skills and thus you may be proficient in playing the flute but not proficient in the wider arena of performing... Or maybe you should clarify this question because I see a multitude of answers to it.

But you DO understand what the reason for asking it was, clearly. Its because the 5e rules are very obtuse, and I would actually say poorly thought out in this entire area. I can recall Mike and the other columnists back during the early 5e design pronouncements fumbling around trying to make up a different better skill system and at every turn being shown how it was not going to work as well as what already existed. But they had to do it different, nothing could be declared good enough. So they shot themselves in the foot and now when we play 5e we have to scratch our heads in wonder at what the heck they were thinking.

Are those the Skill Challenge rules, yes they are... now refresh my memory how do I determine DC's by 4e rules in a SC? Does an NPC ever make an opposed roll in a SC per RAW?

DCs are simply looked up on a table. The DM declares the level of the encounter and the DCs come from that. GENERALLY they are either medium or hard DCs, but all that the Rules Compendium says about that is that a certain number of them can be hard. Still, for a system that encompasses ANY sort of action its pretty tight. No NPCs don't ever make opposed rolls in an SC by RAW for any of the 'make a skill check to fail or succeed' rolls, but additional types of rolls (for advantages) could be of any type.

I'm not going to address your second point because honestly I don't care, they'll figure out what works best for them and their group (like so many DM's and players before them) and that's how I prefer it. We don't all have to play the same way by the immutable RAW... and I'm good with that.

You talk about RAW as if it is a straight jacket but it isn't. I can do all the things in 4e that you can do in 5e, there aren't WotC police stopping me. There are however some rules I can choose to follow that work and make sense. Is it really too much to ask that when I buy a rule book for a game it has rules that make sense and are reasonably complete such that in the first 5 minutes of my game I won't have to make up new ones? 4e LETS me make up whatever I want, and it is even very good at getting out of my way and not telling me what my game should be like, narratively. 5e keeps throwing narrative baggage at me and the same time lets me down when it comes to giving me an actual framework to hang my play on.

I don't want to get carried away here and give the impression that I think 5e is a bad game, its not, but it isn't a better game for Mearls' misguided notions.

Dude we were never in disagreement about hit points... we were in disagreement about whether powers were a common mechanic that worked the same across all classes...

And they are. You weren't at all convincing in stating that they aren't. A vast common set of rules and concepts that are common to all powers verifies that. And again, every edition has many rules in common between characters of all classes. What makes it a problem only in one game? Frankly I think people don't know why they like or dislike something and then they just invent logical-sounding reasons later on.

If you want a more robust character to start with then play at a higher level... it's really simple and you don't have to depend on other people or another site to modify the game so you can do it... it's right there in the rules. It's funny that 4e went back and created rules for 0 level characters if those who wanted to play low level games is nearly non-existent but then again I don't know so unlike you I'll refrain from stating my opinions backed up with anecdotal evidence as fact.

Oh, lets not be silly, when did I say the word fact?

Eh, 4e doesn't really have 0-level rules except for some Dragon article that honestly wasn't incredibly well thought-out of you ask me. I heard a couple people tried it but it didn't sound like it was that special. Personally I like that I can play all levels of 4e and not have to play only one niche sort of low level play where everything is a death trap. As I said before, you can still do that even in 4e if you want.

Why should they have given it a chance? Seriously no one owed WotC or 4e anything. Honestly I regret having purchased all the 4e books I did, always trying to give it one more chance and never enjoying it as much as other games and some other editions. It was a waste of time and money for me and my group. If the game couldn't grab people or better yet was turning them away from even trying it... well maybe that speaks volumes about the game... just saying

And then they were compelled to spend the next 6 years trashing it and talking down on all the people that were happy with it or didn't really care one way or another. Thanks!