Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Rel" data-source="post: 4524440" data-attributes="member: 99">I think that is very clearly stated.&nbsp; Unfortunately it's probably why I stopped playing D&amp;D in favor of other systems that allowed for characters to be more broadly defined.In my early days I played because that's what everybody was playing.&nbsp; Back then the &quot;other options&quot; were very few, and most of them catered to other genres of gaming.&nbsp; But when I did have another option to AD&amp;D, I took it.&nbsp; For the record, the option I went to was Rolemaster, which allowed me to make characters who had a broad array of skills beyond simply their &quot;combat role&quot;.When 3.0 came out, I bought it and played it and found it superior (for me, at that time) to Rolemaster.&nbsp; That was because it allowed me to make characters with a broad array of skills beyond simply their &quot;combat role&quot; BUT it also was vastly less complicated compared to RM.When 4.0 came out, I bought it.&nbsp; And then I didn't like it very much.&nbsp; And then I played it and found it superior (for me, at this time) to 3.5.&nbsp; That was because it allowed me to make characters with a broad array of skills beyond simply their &quot;combat role&quot; BUT it also was rather less complicated (certainly from a GMing perspective) compared to 3.5.Hmm...maybe my tastes haven't changed as much as I thought they had. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />That seems rather condescending.&nbsp; As you've already said, if they play it and don't have fun, there are TONS of other options available to them out there.&nbsp; I would assume that they have the wherewithal to obtain and play alternatives if they suit them better.&nbsp; One of those alternatives will be 3.5 D&amp;D if they so choose.&nbsp; If they have fun with 4e, well, good for them.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Rel, post: 4524440, member: 99"] I think that is very clearly stated. Unfortunately it's probably why I stopped playing D&D in favor of other systems that allowed for characters to be more broadly defined. In my early days I played because that's what everybody was playing. Back then the "other options" were very few, and most of them catered to other genres of gaming. But when I did have another option to AD&D, I took it. For the record, the option I went to was Rolemaster, which allowed me to make characters who had a broad array of skills beyond simply their "combat role". When 3.0 came out, I bought it and played it and found it superior (for me, at that time) to Rolemaster. That was because it allowed me to make characters with a broad array of skills beyond simply their "combat role" BUT it also was vastly less complicated compared to RM. When 4.0 came out, I bought it. And then I didn't like it very much. And then I played it and found it superior (for me, at this time) to 3.5. That was because it allowed me to make characters with a broad array of skills beyond simply their "combat role" BUT it also was rather less complicated (certainly from a GMing perspective) compared to 3.5. Hmm...maybe my tastes haven't changed as much as I thought they had. ;) That seems rather condescending. As you've already said, if they play it and don't have fun, there are TONS of other options available to them out there. I would assume that they have the wherewithal to obtain and play alternatives if they suit them better. One of those alternatives will be 3.5 D&D if they so choose. If they have fun with 4e, well, good for them. [/QUOTE]

Verification