Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6002892" data-attributes="member: 996">I know you go to a lot of trouble to appear inclusive and reasonable in your posts, so I'm sure you didn't mean to imply that no one likes 4e, nor that those who accepted it aren't people.&nbsp; Hussar's point, and your counterpoint, though, are cogent.&nbsp; WotC has been losing the goodwill it got as the 'savior' of D&amp;D when it acquired the failing TSR.&nbsp; I'd say it started with the unexpected release of 3.5 so soon after 3.0 which was seen as a revenue grab.&nbsp; But it might even have been before that, almost from the moment said goodwill was acquired, there were those begrudging the CCG giant taking over the first RPG.&nbsp; The intro of 4e was badly bungled, not just in the sense of marketing to fans, but in the perhaps more critical mis-handling of 3pps.&nbsp; The GSL turned de-facto partners back into competitors, competitors able to keep using the most familiar mechanical elements of 3.x in their products.&nbsp; With that kind of 'two-pronged approach' it's amazing 4e met with any success at all.Back to your other point:&nbsp; while those who rejected 4e may be divided among those who never tried it, tried it but never gave it a chance, or tried it but found it not to their taste, fans of 4e must be at least a bit more unified - while some may have approached it with enthusiasm and others (like myself) with skepticism, we all ended up judging it worthy.Mystifying.&nbsp; AD&amp;D was part of a &quot;two pronged approach,&quot; the other prong being BECMI, of course.&nbsp; AD&amp;D was for the more 'serious' gamer who wanted lots of detailed rules - a complete game.&nbsp; While EGG acknowledged that a game couldn't have a rule for every possible eventuality and that the DM was free to add to/ignore/modify the system presented, he made a pretty fair stab at it, with rules for everything from the radius of torchlight, to how insane characters react to psionic blasts, to the aerial combat tactics of Nycadaemons, to random prostitute tables, to the percentage chance of a sage answering a question.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 6002892, member: 996"] I know you go to a lot of trouble to appear inclusive and reasonable in your posts, so I'm sure you didn't mean to imply that no one likes 4e, nor that those who accepted it aren't people. Hussar's point, and your counterpoint, though, are cogent. WotC has been losing the goodwill it got as the 'savior' of D&D when it acquired the failing TSR. I'd say it started with the unexpected release of 3.5 so soon after 3.0 which was seen as a revenue grab. But it might even have been before that, almost from the moment said goodwill was acquired, there were those begrudging the CCG giant taking over the first RPG. The intro of 4e was badly bungled, not just in the sense of marketing to fans, but in the perhaps more critical mis-handling of 3pps. The GSL turned de-facto partners back into competitors, competitors able to keep using the most familiar mechanical elements of 3.x in their products. With that kind of 'two-pronged approach' it's amazing 4e met with any success at all. Back to your other point: while those who rejected 4e may be divided among those who never tried it, tried it but never gave it a chance, or tried it but found it not to their taste, fans of 4e must be at least a bit more unified - while some may have approached it with enthusiasm and others (like myself) with skepticism, we all ended up judging it worthy. Mystifying. AD&D was part of a "two pronged approach," the other prong being BECMI, of course. AD&D was for the more 'serious' gamer who wanted lots of detailed rules - a complete game. While EGG acknowledged that a game couldn't have a rule for every possible eventuality and that the DM was free to add to/ignore/modify the system presented, he made a pretty fair stab at it, with rules for everything from the radius of torchlight, to how insane characters react to psionic blasts, to the aerial combat tactics of Nycadaemons, to random prostitute tables, to the percentage chance of a sage answering a question. [/QUOTE]

Verification