Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Rygar" data-source="post: 6250527" data-attributes="member: 6756765">I disagree.&nbsp; WOTC really fragmented the player base with 4th edition,&nbsp; and divided it into two main camps.&nbsp; 3rd edition and 4th edition.&nbsp; 1st/2nd edition only players do exist,&nbsp; but I'm not convinced they're in large numbers.Regardless,&nbsp; these camps read there's going to be a new D&amp;D,&nbsp; and the result was...1st edition - &quot;If they put anything that wasn't in 1st in there,&nbsp; I'm not touching it&quot;.2nd edition - &quot;One whisper of feats or powers,&nbsp; and I'm out&quot;3rd edition - &quot;If I see *any* of the mechanics that caused me to avoid 4th edition I'm going to argue against it&quot;4th edition - &quot;They finally had it right,&nbsp; this is a waste of time,&nbsp; if it's not an evolved 4th edition I'm going to argue against it&quot;.WOTC didn't help anything with their playtest.&nbsp; What they should have shown us is how we approximate each edition with their rules.&nbsp; What they did show us was a progression from 1st edition to 4th edition without any indication that the final results are options and not default assumptions.&nbsp; Since no one has a clue if they can get the game they want out of 5th,&nbsp; everyone assumes that what we saw in the last packet is the base game,&nbsp; and everyone armors up and goes to war based on the above.If you watch closely,&nbsp; you can see this is true.&nbsp; Pick a random defining factor of an edition,&nbsp; write down a list of names by edition they preferred,&nbsp; post ito the WOTC boards a thread discussing that random defining factor,&nbsp; and you can literally watch as the list you prepared is exactly how everyone argues.&nbsp; No one is really evaluating features,&nbsp; everyone's evaluating which edition the feature came from over there.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Rygar, post: 6250527, member: 6756765"] I disagree. WOTC really fragmented the player base with 4th edition, and divided it into two main camps. 3rd edition and 4th edition. 1st/2nd edition only players do exist, but I'm not convinced they're in large numbers. Regardless, these camps read there's going to be a new D&D, and the result was... 1st edition - "If they put anything that wasn't in 1st in there, I'm not touching it". 2nd edition - "One whisper of feats or powers, and I'm out" 3rd edition - "If I see *any* of the mechanics that caused me to avoid 4th edition I'm going to argue against it" 4th edition - "They finally had it right, this is a waste of time, if it's not an evolved 4th edition I'm going to argue against it". WOTC didn't help anything with their playtest. What they should have shown us is how we approximate each edition with their rules. What they did show us was a progression from 1st edition to 4th edition without any indication that the final results are options and not default assumptions. Since no one has a clue if they can get the game they want out of 5th, everyone assumes that what we saw in the last packet is the base game, and everyone armors up and goes to war based on the above. If you watch closely, you can see this is true. Pick a random defining factor of an edition, write down a list of names by edition they preferred, post ito the WOTC boards a thread discussing that random defining factor, and you can literally watch as the list you prepared is exactly how everyone argues. No one is really evaluating features, everyone's evaluating which edition the feature came from over there. [/QUOTE]

Verification