Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="billd91" data-source="post: 4519359" data-attributes="member: 3400">I'm not really sure about either RC or pemerton's styles of play (though I think I've been on the same side as they in a number of board debates lately), but I would have been much happier with a 4e that was more backward compatible, particularly with the fluff peripheries.In fact, I think the classes and power structure could be a pretty interesting subsystem for a more 3.5-like game. There are still things I have grave misgivings about like DCs rising with the level of the party and not the inherent difficulty of the task, but I think a D&D edition that kept more continuity with the past editions and more tools to support that sort of campaign would have been more welcome. I imagine a MM with monsters designed for 4e but with an additional list of powers for the creature from previous editions, under the heading of "Lesser used powers" for DMs to build additional plot hooks around. Or a MM with a lot more mundane creatures for the lower-powered or more mundane campaign.Then there comes the new cosmology. Personally, I don't mind it so much since I thought the Great Wheel was quite a hodge-podge. But then I didn't play a Planescape campaign. But since there are outer planes books dating back to 1st edition (and TWO for 3.x varieties) and lots of adventures, there was quite a bit of general continuity that was dropped off the map. Were Planescape my favorite campaign, I'd feel a bit like my branch of fandom was kicked to the curb.The way I see it, mechanics have a little to do with the types of stories I want to play, but less than all of the other things going on around the actual mechanics. If I want to build an adventure involving a lot of natural creatures, I have to do a lot of wheel re-inventing or wait until 4e finally puts out a MM supporting druid characters, something I didn't have to do very much of in any previous edition of AD&D. Blood war stories? Not so much. Planescape? Nope. Any ongoing campaign focusing on these things, or on druids, barbarians, bards, or even the FR in the heyday of the 2e-3e timeline, faces barriers going to 4e, even if the players and DM like the combat mechanics.And all of those changes from pre-3e periphery to 4e are completely optional changes, not inherently necessary because of any of the mechanics of 4e revealed to us so far. So WotC chose to tack away from some of the elements that have built D&D into the brand that it is today. I can't imagine they didn't know or at least assume that doing so would lose them some fans and customers, at least in the short term (they could always tack back with some future supplements). Realistically, with certain kinds of changes, you've probably only got customers to lose. Who's going to go to 4e specifically because of the cosmological changes? Probably nobody. They'll shift for the changes in mechanical gameplay. But will there be people, who might have otherwise been willing to shift editions, staying with a previous edition because the cosmology shifted? Probably.So did WotC's target audience shift? Sure did. They shifted priority away from retaining long-time continuity players and that shifts the target audience.</blockquote>

Verification