Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Emerikol" data-source="post: 6003071" data-attributes="member: 6698278">You are correct I was dividing those who disliked 4e into two camps.&nbsp; The triers and the non-triers.&nbsp; Obviously marketing matters if a person didn't even try the game.&nbsp; If they did try it and played it extensively then marketing probably had less of an impact (negatively anyway you might say it worked).&nbsp;&nbsp; I'm not sure how big either camp is.&nbsp; I'm definited in the tried camp. But some seem to think the other camp is big and maybe it is.&nbsp; I have no idea.&nbsp; I think some people may be more experienced in some ways than me and were able to see what they disliked because they were more self aware as to their tastes.&nbsp; I'm sure now I can see things I don't like far more easily than I could in 2008.It would be interesting to analyze 4e players.&nbsp; I'm not as certain as you that all of those playing it think it is a 10 or even a 9.&nbsp; I think there are definitely some that think it is the stuff.&nbsp; No question.&nbsp; But I also think like every edition there are people that just go with the flow.&nbsp; They play D&amp;D whatever edition is current.&nbsp; They will play 5e too.Yeah I loved all the &quot;world&quot; flavor stuff but you surely agree that day to day most of those rules didn't crop up.&nbsp; The main game system was pretty simple if not streamlined.&nbsp; I think a book with nothing but those sorts of things answered would be great.&nbsp; Not sure it complicates the game if it exists or not.&nbsp; Also I always judge a game by it's original three books, what is considered core until 4e.&nbsp; I never used any of the players options in 2e.&nbsp; So I don't judge 2e by those options.&nbsp; I also don't judge 3e by the book of nine swords.&nbsp; I consider any book past the first as optional.&nbsp; All my players knew that everything outside the core 3 had to be DM approved.&nbsp; No feat, no spell, no skill was automatically in if it came from another book.&nbsp; So this philosophy does color my view of the editions to some degree.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Emerikol, post: 6003071, member: 6698278"] You are correct I was dividing those who disliked 4e into two camps. The triers and the non-triers. Obviously marketing matters if a person didn't even try the game. If they did try it and played it extensively then marketing probably had less of an impact (negatively anyway you might say it worked). I'm not sure how big either camp is. I'm definited in the tried camp. But some seem to think the other camp is big and maybe it is. I have no idea. I think some people may be more experienced in some ways than me and were able to see what they disliked because they were more self aware as to their tastes. I'm sure now I can see things I don't like far more easily than I could in 2008. It would be interesting to analyze 4e players. I'm not as certain as you that all of those playing it think it is a 10 or even a 9. I think there are definitely some that think it is the stuff. No question. But I also think like every edition there are people that just go with the flow. They play D&D whatever edition is current. They will play 5e too. Yeah I loved all the "world" flavor stuff but you surely agree that day to day most of those rules didn't crop up. The main game system was pretty simple if not streamlined. I think a book with nothing but those sorts of things answered would be great. Not sure it complicates the game if it exists or not. Also I always judge a game by it's original three books, what is considered core until 4e. I never used any of the players options in 2e. So I don't judge 2e by those options. I also don't judge 3e by the book of nine swords. I consider any book past the first as optional. All my players knew that everything outside the core 3 had to be DM approved. No feat, no spell, no skill was automatically in if it came from another book. So this philosophy does color my view of the editions to some degree. [/QUOTE]

Verification