Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="teach" data-source="post: 4518788" data-attributes="member: 45322">I think what is interesting reading this thread, is that I never truly felt like I was WotC's target audience for 3.5.&nbsp; I bought the core books, and a couple splat books (because they had feats or prestige classes that sounded interesting) and the Eberron Campaign Guide.&nbsp;&nbsp; I think I've already spent as much on 4e that I did on 3.5.&nbsp; However, I was a huge consumer of 2e books.&nbsp; I loved the setting books, primarily the ones that moved away from the &quot;vanilla lord of the rings&quot; style fantasy (al-qadim, dark sun, planescape) and bought a ton of the campaign box sets (which was tough on my allowance).&nbsp; I was definitely TSR's target audience for 2e, as I bought into multiple settings (which I think was one of their big expected revenue streams at the time).&nbsp; Now, I'm playing a ton more 4e than 3.5.&nbsp; Do I like the default setting?&nbsp; Marginally better, because I think the points of light allows for a lot more freedom in modifying it than the greyhawk-lite setting in 3.5.&nbsp; Also, in 3.5, the crunch (the feats and prestige classes) and the fluff seemed more tied together.&nbsp; Since I didn't really like the fluff in 3.5 much, it made it harder to enjoy and use the books because of the concern that if I changed the fluff would I also need to change the crunch.&nbsp;&nbsp; In 4e, the fluff and crunch appear to be seperated better (at least so far), so it's easier to ignore.&nbsp; To tie back into the OP, I think 4e is more directed towards me and gamers like me (the kind that really like taking the core rules, and creating our own very diverse worlds around it, the kind that likes being tight with the combat rules, but loose with everytihng else).&nbsp; I'm lucky I guess in that I don't see the 4e rules getting in the way of the stories I want to tell, even though they include very little of the fluff included in 4e.&nbsp; I agree that the books that have been released so far haven't been very &quot;reader friendly&quot;.&nbsp; they really are books of crunch rather than books telling a story, and including crunch as needed.&nbsp; But I don't mind it, because I have my own stories I want to tell.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="teach, post: 4518788, member: 45322"] I think what is interesting reading this thread, is that I never truly felt like I was WotC's target audience for 3.5. I bought the core books, and a couple splat books (because they had feats or prestige classes that sounded interesting) and the Eberron Campaign Guide. I think I've already spent as much on 4e that I did on 3.5. However, I was a huge consumer of 2e books. I loved the setting books, primarily the ones that moved away from the "vanilla lord of the rings" style fantasy (al-qadim, dark sun, planescape) and bought a ton of the campaign box sets (which was tough on my allowance). I was definitely TSR's target audience for 2e, as I bought into multiple settings (which I think was one of their big expected revenue streams at the time). Now, I'm playing a ton more 4e than 3.5. Do I like the default setting? Marginally better, because I think the points of light allows for a lot more freedom in modifying it than the greyhawk-lite setting in 3.5. Also, in 3.5, the crunch (the feats and prestige classes) and the fluff seemed more tied together. Since I didn't really like the fluff in 3.5 much, it made it harder to enjoy and use the books because of the concern that if I changed the fluff would I also need to change the crunch. In 4e, the fluff and crunch appear to be seperated better (at least so far), so it's easier to ignore. To tie back into the OP, I think 4e is more directed towards me and gamers like me (the kind that really like taking the core rules, and creating our own very diverse worlds around it, the kind that likes being tight with the combat rules, but loose with everytihng else). I'm lucky I guess in that I don't see the 4e rules getting in the way of the stories I want to tell, even though they include very little of the fluff included in 4e. I agree that the books that have been released so far haven't been very "reader friendly". they really are books of crunch rather than books telling a story, and including crunch as needed. But I don't mind it, because I have my own stories I want to tell. [/QUOTE]

Verification