Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 5541209" data-attributes="member: 82106">Well, there will always be someone who won't play any given game. There's a lot of people in the world. For the concept of a 'split' to be meaningful I think more is required than "there's this guy that won't play X and there's this other guy that won't play Y" to be saying anything meaningful. I don't know that I care to try to parameterize what constitutes a split. I don't see that any arbitrary dividing lines I'd draw would mean much or that there would be any reason for anyone else to agree with them.I don't even agree that there is any appreciable split at Enworld. Again there are people that insist they won't play one or the other, but people make a lot of absolute sounding statements online and then when it comes down to it they don't mean much. More importantly than that though, I don't see that many people here making such hard and fast statements. Some, but it seems like a reasonably small fraction. The fact that there's no way to prove or disprove BryonD's assertion has no bearing on its validity whatsoever. Reasoning that "because you can't disprove X that proves it" is so wrong it isn't even wrong. No rational person operating in an evidence driven logical deductive fashion will be convinced without convincing evidence. Anyway, to get off that dead horse...Back in the 2e days our policy was basically if it wasn't core 3 book 2e then forget it. We did utilize some of the earlier supplements like the Priests Handbook and Monster Mythology. The later options stuff was all pretty much untested garbage that was pumped out during the "Playtesting is a waste of time and not real work" phase of TSR's final plunge into oblivion. Now and then someone would try to pass some of it off, but I never even bothered to buy those books. This was TSR's jumping of the shark.As for 4e, we allow anything from any official source. There have been a few times when concern has been expressed about a specific build, item, or power. Nobody in my games ever insisted on cheesing out, so it didn't matter. The orb wizard wasn't that optimized, only picked up one or two save penalty effects, and generally didn't try to break things wide open. Notice though, this possibility wouldn't have required anything except core stuff, AV1 and PHB1. So you see 4e seems to be the first edition that didn't diverge into lala land at some point. It always had a few broken things, they got fixed, and you can safely purchase any 4e book and it is well designed. I know I have most of them and they're all fine. The stuff in Dragon is fine too. 4e has in no way shape or form jumped anything. It may be slowing down due to having tapped out most of the obvious material, but it sure hasn't gone downhill.</blockquote>

Verification