Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Marnak" data-source="post: 3856186" data-attributes="member: 24886"><p>I can see what Hairfoot is saying, and I think that 3e was that kind of change.&nbsp; However, what I was speaking about was the process behind 4e.&nbsp; I think the reason for 3e was not the DM fiat problem but rather the decade long buildup of handbooks, supplements, and other rules for 2e which broke the game to the point where people like me simply stopped playing the game or at least stopped buying the products for the game.&nbsp; So, I think 3e could have gone in a number of directions and been successful, even if it had stayed within the DM fiat framework.&nbsp; I think Hairfoot may well be right about the direction of 4e, but I don't think that it was the need to go back in that direction (toward the DM fiat) which was driving the creation of 4e.&nbsp;&nbsp; I think 3.5e was doing&nbsp; fine as a whole and minor tweaks could have solved the game play problems if the market would have allowed it.</p></blockquote><p></p>

[QUOTE="Marnak, post: 3856186, member: 24886"] I can see what Hairfoot is saying, and I think that 3e was that kind of change. However, what I was speaking about was the process behind 4e. I think the reason for 3e was not the DM fiat problem but rather the decade long buildup of handbooks, supplements, and other rules for 2e which broke the game to the point where people like me simply stopped playing the game or at least stopped buying the products for the game. So, I think 3e could have gone in a number of directions and been successful, even if it had stayed within the DM fiat framework. I think Hairfoot may well be right about the direction of 4e, but I don't think that it was the need to go back in that direction (toward the DM fiat) which was driving the creation of 4e. I think 3.5e was doing fine as a whole and minor tweaks could have solved the game play problems if the market would have allowed it. [/QUOTE]

Verification