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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6017220" data-attributes="member: 996">Hey, D&D hasn't been /that/ bad for well over a decade!  Maybe even two (2e was cleaned up a bit).  3e you could play without modification (indeed, try getting it's system-master fans to put up with much modification), so it's hardly a failure, even though it was still wildly imbalanced.  And 4e wasn't unbalanced at all, though it was a failure, of course.  It's an accepted fact that D&D was a poorly-balanced game much given to the 5MWD, Maunty Haul campaigns and Killer DMs, and, starting with 3e, wild opitimization shinnanigans.  Claims to the contrary are supported only by unverifiable anecdotal evidence provided by anonymous posters on the internet.  It is also an accepted fact that D&D has always sold well, and is the only RPG that's remotely penetrated the mainstream.  The two are not entirely un-related, but the causality, if there is any, probably isn't in the direction you might think.  TSR made little attempt to improve the system during its reign, even as technically superior systems were produced by it's rivals, and it continued to be the leading RPG in commercial terms.  WotC tried improving the system, and that tactic seemed to work in terms of commercial success with 3e, but failed with 4e.  The most logical conclusion to draw is that D&D doesn't sell on the strength of its system.  In any case, this argument: is nothing more than a standard-issue fallacious appeal to popularity.  A product is selling well, therefor there is nothing wrong with it.  By that logic, cigarette's can't possibly be dangerous, and McDonald's must have better hamburgers than In-N-Out...</blockquote>

Verification