Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Oofta" data-source="post: 8457374" data-attributes="member: 6801845">They changed a lot of fundamental things and made it into a different game with similar labels.  Whether that new game was good or not is not particularly relevant, to a lot of people it didn't feel like D&D in the same way that every other game has.  If it had been released as it's own separate game (and given a little more development time) I think it could have been reasonably successful.There was more than just one issue.   <img class="smilie smilie--emoji" alt="🤷‍♂️" src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f937-2642.png" title="Man shrugging    :man_shrugging:" data-shortname=":man_shrugging:" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" />This relates back to the topic in that you can call that "look and feel" of D&D tradition if you want.  However to me it was the difference between creating a new game with a lot of similarities to D&D that has new structure and creating a new edition that evolved and refined the game.  My first 5E PC was an homage to one of my first PCs from back in my 1E days.  The new PC, a dual wielding dwarven rogue, was the grandson of that old PC.  While things obviously worked a lot different, in play the new PC felt much the same.  The beats and rhythms were the same even if I always wanted to roll high, my new PC was a rogue instead of a thief and I did sneak attacks instead of backstabs.  I took a half-hearted stab at doing the same thing in 4E and just couldn't make it work and gave up.So to me tradition includes that ephemeral look and feel of the game that's hard to put a finger on.  It's just one of those things that you know when you see it.</blockquote>

Verification