Discuss...
Considering I had no part of 2E, no. I would have been happy to live with my 1E memories and never pick up the game.
If 3rd edition used 4th edition rules, we wouldn't be here.
If 3rd edition used 4th edition rules, we wouldn't be here.
yep he is right if 4e came out when 3e did id still be useing 2e its just to much i have super hero games after all.
Discuss...
Before I can really engage this question, I need some context.
I don't say this unpleasantly, but text often conveys unintended hostility. That's not what I intend.
So.. with that kindly disclaimer said: What are you trying to say here?
4th Edition is not 3Rd Edition, and while there are some surface similarities to then and now, these are different times and circumstances. The market is different now than in the declining twilight of 2nd edition.
Honest answer?
No.
Why?
I had a later release of the core books for 2nd edition (aka the Black cover copies) and I only bought those because I was making ALOT of money at the time and thought... oh why not, I'm buying everything else at this point.
I hated 2nd Edition, I played GURPS... and I really liked GURPS except for the adjust your income rate anytime you make more than a small amount over the norm on an adventure... it made me miss the old Rogue style games.
And I had my own home bash role playing game I was working on at the time.... wish I hadn't ever thrown those rules out.
I bought 3rd edition because I heard it was everything I ever wanted with D&D... I took the gamble, and was EXTREMELY pleased.
With this in mind... why didn't WOTC just re-release the 3.5 Player's Handbook, DM's Guide, and Monster Manual like TSR did with 2nd Edition (the black covers)... you know, new art, a bit of new "cream writing", perhaps a couple of new prestige classes, errata added, a few new optional monsters, etc..... I'm needing to buy new 3.5 core books as it is... my DM's Guide is starting to split at the seams in the back, I would have bought them.
Actually, I will be buying them... and some copies of 3rd edition too because its being going for cheap in Like New and Very Good condition lately.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
No.
The big revolution from 2.x to 3.x was the OGL. Suddenly we'd gone from They Sue Regularly to We Ought To Create! That's been my concern, the GSL seems to be geared towards Hey! Another System Brings Revenue Our way.
I've been hoping WotC makes this 4.x successful, for the sake of the hobby. But I fear the GSL will be the death of the goose
I'm not sure what the question means. Do you mean:
1) If 4e rules were closer to 3.x rules?
2) If the 4e rules were released as 3e, instead of the 3e rules that were actually released at the time?
3) Something else?
If 4E was 3E it would never have won me over. Why? It would be way to radical a shift from AD&D to the new "dailies", starting out with 32 hp (which I don't understand but I'll enter that question into the HP discussion), dragons being fought (even marginally effectively) at 1st level, etc. The shift would have been so drastic from the danger filled levels of 2E that I would rather have kept AD&D or walked away entirely.
The big changes that brought me to 3.5 (I skipped 3E playing 2E) were:
* crossbow range and damage
* pole-arms and reach AoO
* Saving throws reduced to 3 less arbitrary categories
* rogues back-stab (I mean ... huh ... their sneak attack, that's it!) become more then a one shot
* Prestige classes offering a longer specialization then kits
* the extra skills (knowledge, craft, profession, etc)
* Oh and the OGL was a big thrill that helped. It seemed like they wanted to bring D&D back to the fans! If I wanted I could add my material to the whole!
I think is 4E is a hop and skip away from 3E. And 3E was a hop and skip away from 2E. I look back and go "Hm-mm I know what I like, what endeared me to D&D back in the day. This isn't it any more." After it is not abit different, or even very different from they D&D I knew, it is completely different from it.
I'm not sure what the question means. Do you mean:
1) If 4e rules were closer to 3.x rules?
2) If the 4e rules were released as 3e, instead of the 3e rules that were actually released at the time?
3) Something else?
Hey's saying, Imagine WotC just bought TSR and they announced 3E. If 3E was what we know to be 4E, how would you have felt?
Honest answer?
No.
Why?
I had a later release of the core books for 2nd edition (aka the Black cover copies) and I only bought those because I was making ALOT of money at the time and thought... oh why not, I'm buying everything else at this point.I hated 2nd Edition, I played GURPS... and I really liked GURPS except for the adjust your income rate anytime you make more than a small amount over the norm on an adventure... it made me miss the old Rogue style games.
And I had my own home bash role playing game I was working on at the time.... wish I hadn't ever thrown those rules out.
I bought 3rd edition because I heard it was everything I ever wanted with D&D... I took the gamble, and was EXTREMELY pleased.
With this in mind... why didn't WOTC just re-release the 3.5 Player's Handbook, DM's Guide, and Monster Manual like TSR did with 2nd Edition (the black covers)... you know, new art, a bit of new "cream writing", perhaps a couple of new prestige classes, errata added, a few new optional monsters, etc..... I'm needing to buy new 3.5 core books as it is... my DM's Guide is starting to split at the seams in the back, I would have bought them.
Actually, I will be buying them... and some copies of 3rd edition too because its being going for cheap in Like New and Very Good condition lately.
Off topic, but check out Amazon's "trusted seller" system, or whatever they call it. I bought Magic of Incarnum new for under $10, and that is AFTER shipping. There seemed to be many other books on there at similar prices as well.
Cheers! :)
Most likely not. WHile by the time 2e got to the black books it was fairly broken the radical changes that are being made with 4e would have been too much. The complete change to the spell system has been a real sticking point for me. It just doesn't feel like D&D without the same magic system. The change from 2e to 3e was still D&D to me because it appeared at the time that a lot of it was renaming and consolidation but overall the same game. The feel to 4e from any other edition is quite a bit different and I think that's what bothers me. If I want a different fantasy game there are plenty out there but if I want D&D I want the D&D I'm used to.
No.
I've been hoping WotC makes this 4.x successful, for the sake of the hobby. But I fear the GSL will be the death of the goose
That's one of my greatest concerns... yes, we are all assuming that if WotC collapses that the system will be sold off... hopefully to a progressive, open minded company like WotC was several years ago, but at the same time there's that threat that Hasbro could say "We're going to bury this unsuccessful line... out of print, no sell, because what we are concerned with ultimately is protecting the minds of our precious little children..."
(which, I doubt that Hasbro really cares that much about the "moral" battle and all, but that is a possibility that could always happen)
Off topic, but check out Amazon's "trusted seller" system, or whatever they call it. I bought Magic of Incarnum new for under $10, and that is AFTER shipping. There seemed to be many other books on there at similar prices as well.
Cheers! :)
David,
Thanks for the advice... actually I already use as well. <grin>A person would be amazed at the deals they can get. One thing that I usta do was purchase alot of 3.5 books from Smokey Mountain Books, one of the more progressive sellers on Amazon... turns out they are a mere hour or so from my house so I would not only get the books for about 1/2 to 1/3 the normal price but also get them rather quickly.
Most likely not. WHile by the time 2e got to the black books it was fairly broken the radical changes that are being made with 4e would have been too much. The complete change to the spell system has been a real sticking point for me. It just doesn't feel like D&D without the same magic system. The change from 2e to 3e was still D&D to me because it appeared at the time that a lot of it was renaming and consolidation but overall the same game. The feel to 4e from any other edition is quite a bit different and I think that's what bothers me. If I want a different fantasy game there are plenty out there but if I want D&D I want the D&D I'm used to.
In a way this "powers system" as they call it reminds me a bit like Torg's added cards, only instead of having a few cards to hold on to, all of your powers are cards... I guess in a way that D&D now has been compared more to MTG.... it would honestly work better, in my opinion, if you just had cards now if a person was to play 4th edition... would probably give WotC yet something else random and collectible they could sell alongside the minis.... if this is the way that they foresee their New Fantasy Battle Game (I don't want to call it D&D because to me its no longer D&D... its another game altogether sharing the old product name)to be, with powers and all, it would have probably worked better if you had a strange merger of collectible card game, collectible miniatures, and an overseeing collection of rule books... buy your minis, customize them with power cards for their power time, do battle on a grid.
Its a shame really, if WotC had looked into this and left D&D alone, they could have possibly had a new hit seller... a new Magic The Gathering, probably what they would have liked for Dreamblade to have been but did not live up to sales wise.
...power type I meant to say, not power time.
No.
I've been hoping WotC makes this 4.x successful, for the sake of the hobby. But I fear the GSL will be the death of the goose
That's one of my greatest concerns... yes, we are all assuming that if WotC collapses that the system will be sold off... hopefully to a progressive, open minded company like WotC was several years ago, but at the same time there's that threat that Hasbro could say "We're going to bury this unsuccessful line... out of print, no sell, because what we are concerned with ultimately is protecting the minds of our precious little children..."
(which, I doubt that Hasbro really cares that much about the "moral" battle and all, but that is a possibility that could always happen)
The real fear (to me) is that Hasbro's asking price would be too high for anyone to meet. DnD is THE brand, I think everyone here agrees. If Hasbro ever decides it isn't making them enough money and are going to get rid of it, it's still going to have a HUGE asking price attached. IMO, at least.
I'm not sure what the question means. Do you mean:
1) If 4e rules were closer to 3.x rules?
2) If the 4e rules were released as 3e, instead of the 3e rules that were actually released at the time?
3) Something else?
He's saying, Imagine WotC just bought TSR and they announced 3E. If 3E was what we know to be 4E, how would you have felt?
Precisely. :)
|
No.
The evolutionary step would have been too big. 3E was the right system for that time. The d20 license was a great addition (though the OGL games that came along later were not so great).
Though 3E could have chugged along a little while longer it would have been in decline.
4E seems to be a solid system though it may feel like a different game. Only time will tell if it was the right game for right now.
The real fear (to me) is that Hasbro's asking price would be too high for anyone to meet. DnD is THE brand, I think everyone here agrees. If Hasbro ever decides it isn't making them enough money and are going to get rid of it, it's still going to have a HUGE asking price attached. IMO, at least.
Yes, that's another fear of mine... Hasbro honestly does not see this aspect of the gaming industry in the same light that many of the original and possibly current WotC staff sees it. In many ways I feel this new edition is the result of Hasbro placing pressure on WotC to show dollar signs. If Hasbro's asking price is to high, DnD will essentially be dead in the water for a very long time... if not for altogether good (well, at least until copyrights run out and someone fails to renew them.... ;) )
Most likely not. WHile by the time 2e got to the black books it was fairly broken the radical changes that are being made with 4e would have been too much. The complete change to the spell system has been a real sticking point for me. It just doesn't feel like D&D without the same magic system. The change from 2e to 3e was still D&D to me because it appeared at the time that a lot of it was renaming and consolidation but overall the same game. The feel to 4e from any other edition is quite a bit different and I think that's what bothers me. If I want a different fantasy game there are plenty out there but if I want D&D I want the D&D I'm used to.
My point exactly about 4E. It's just a different game, not the D&D we've all been used to for 30+ years.
I usually give people this scenario to explain my feelings about 4E. If you played 1E and switched to 2E, a lot of what you saw in 1E still exists in 2E. If you played 2E and switched to 3E, a lot of what you know and see in 2E is still in 3E/3.5E. I loved still having my alignment system intact and, actually, expanded upon (with Law, Chaos, Evil, and Good descriptors on spells for example). Schools of magic still there, and they eventually brought back dual school spells. The infamous Wish spell still there, classic extraplanar creatures representing each alignment (I'm a huge Planescape fan, what can I say, and to see that I can still run a basic Planescape setting in 3E still makes me happy). They brought back some old classics like Barbarian and Monk. Spell levels still 1st-9th, multiclassing rules much more balances, prestige classes totally awesome "specialist" classes added in. It helped me flesh out my NPCs more creatively and the same with my players for their characters. My players actually WANT to play several different characters of the same class, thanks to prestige classes. One may be a Fighter/Duelist, another a Fighter/Rogue, or the other a Fighter/Sorcerer/Eldritch Knight.
4E, however, is highly unrecognizable. A lot of what changed just makes people go "Huh?". I can understand why they did what they did, but there is a way to simplify a game while still keeping it the same game. Keeping the schools of magic and the alignment system, for example, could've been done while making it more cooler and more interactive. Make it more fun, as they keep stating. Magic could've been kept the same, just simply give spellcasters FREE Reserve feats as they level up. They could've made warriors more interesting, they should've released Complete Warrior 2 for 3.5e and introduced a mechanic like "exploits". They were already making rogues cooler with the introduction to the Skill Trick system.
Why drop the elves natural lifespan so drastically? Just because players fail to read elven lore written through 2E and 3E as to why an elf isn't 20th-level when they're 400 years old doesn't mean you cater to such lazy people. It's called story and called a DM, let them explain why 700-year old elven so-and-so is still 1st-level.
4E doesn't feel like the D&D I have been used to since 2nd Edition. It's recognizable by name, but that's about it.
To stay on topic, I'd have to say I might have switched to 4E if it had been the 3E back in the year 2000. It's the fact that 3E kept to the spirit and mythology of D&D so closely that I now find myself not wanting to veer away from it at all, or at least not so far.
That's one of my greatest concerns... yes, we are all assuming that if WotC collapses that the system will be sold off... hopefully to a progressive, open minded company like WotC was several years ago, but at the same time there's that threat that Hasbro could say "We're going to bury this unsuccessful line... out of print, no sell, because what we are concerned with ultimately is protecting the minds of our precious little children..."
(which, I doubt that Hasbro really cares that much about the "moral" battle and all, but that is a possibility that could always happen)
There's no way Hasbro would sell off the D&D brand, even if the game itself fails. It's simply too valuable a trademark and brand, even in media outside the traditional RPG.
I'm guessing that if 4e fails, pen-and-paper D&D will be discontinued and the brand will be repurposed for all-online gaming. It's the kind of brand recognition that would be needed if one wanted to compete out of the gate with something like WoW.
They might conceivably sell the actual pen-and-paper game system itself, but it wouldn't come with the D&D name or any product identity. The buyer would have to call it something different.
My group went from 1e to a homebrew system. After that we played other games for many years, and then started with D&D again with 3.0. I was really surprised how similar 3.0 was to our home system; in fact, over and over again I had the feeling "hey, that's what I was trying to do, but this is a better implementation." (Not always: I still like our handling of specialist mages a lot better than 3.0 or 3.5. But quite often.)
I doubt very much I would have had that reaction to 4e, so I probably would have continued playing something else. Our main reason for going back to D&D was module availability, so I might have ended up running old modules in 1e or possibly 2e, and my husband might have ended up running them in the homebrew. (He was always better at converting on the fly than I was.)
4e seems so strongly flavored that it's not substitutable for the others; I have trouble imagining doing a conversion.
Mary
Discuss...
If the 4th edition rules were what I saw back in 2000, I would have stuck with 2nd edition for my D&D game (keeping the houserules I had in place).
For the type of game that 4th edition represents, I'd have played Robin Law's Feng Shui RPG.
They might conceivably sell the actual pen-and-paper game system itself, but it wouldn't come with the D&D name or any product identity. The buyer would have to call it something different.
Of course which wouldn't really be worth the price without the rights of name/title (aka DnD), because you can pretty much make a very close game system mechanically without worrying about the copyright issues.
|
|
The real fear (to me) is that Hasbro's asking price would be too high for anyone to meet. DnD is THE brand, I think everyone here agrees. If Hasbro ever decides it isn't making them enough money and are going to get rid of it, it's still going to have a HUGE asking price attached. IMO, at least.
just wait a few years ? brands lose value over time.
I have to agree with all of the above. If 4E was what I saw in 2000, I wouldn't have bothered re-energising my D&D games with a new system. It would have just been too much a departure from what I was used to.
3E/3.5E took all the good and classic elements of the game, took out the ambiguity of a lot of rules and turned D&D into the best edition of the game so far. 4E will not be able to replicate that.
Exactly how many years is it until a brand becomes public domain?
Depending on how long that takes, I'd love to see D&D go back to the way it was pre-4E with another company once it goes public domain. I might still be alive...old, but alive.
I have to agree with all of the above. If 4E was what I saw in 2000, I wouldn't have bothered re-energising my D&D games with a new system. It would have just been too much a departure from what I was used to.
3E/3.5E took all the good and classic elements of the game, took out the ambiguity of a lot of rules and turned D&D into the best edition of the game so far. 4E will not be able to replicate that.
I think what 4E will replicate as the best MMORPG-on-paper type game there is and the best Enhanced D&D Miniatures rules game there is. Outside that, I don't see much else it has going for it.
Exactly how many years is it until a brand becomes public domain?
Depending on how long that takes, I'd love to see D&D go back to the way it was pre-4E with another company once it goes public domain. I might still be alive...old, but alive.
Not really...copyright on works-for-hire last 95 years from the date of publication. And that number keeps getting extended, every time "Steamboat Willie" is about to fall into the public domain and Disney lobbies Congress to extend the term.
The reality is that probably nothing currently under copyright will ever fall into the public domain.
And trademarks never fall into the PD unless they're abandoned by their owners, or not defended, or not used for a long period of time.
I want to see the GSL before answering this.
No.
The evolutionary step would have been too big. 3E was the right system for that time. The d20 license was a great addition (though the OGL games that came along later were not so great).
Though 3E could have chugged along a little while longer it would have been in decline.
4E seems to be a solid system though it may feel like a different game. Only time will tell if it was the right game for right now.
Wrong. Flat-out lie, in fact.
The are numerous OGL games that were/are excellent.
Conan. A Game of Thrones. Arcana Unearthed/Evolved. Spycraft.
They took the d20 engine and applied them to genres and areas that WotC was either unable or unwilling to do.
From my personal experience, in doing so, they showed me that the d20 engine was flexible enough to support the genres and types of games I wanted to run. OGL games + the d20 license allowed me to create the game I wanted to run and my players wanted to play.
It was only after I purchased Conan, Grim Tales, and other 3rd-party products that I purchased 3e D&D books.
Oh yeah, and I'm pretty sure those awesome Pathfinder books are OGL also.
WotC isn't closing things down with the GSL b/c OGL games were inferior. They're doing it because they don't want to have to compete with OGL games. That's their perogative of course, but it's a move to protect their piece of the pie, not to protect the purity or quality of the game. To make a blanket statement saying that OGL games were inferior products is a crock of excrement in my opinion.
I would have laughed at what became of D&D and continued playing d6 Star Wars.
Unfortunately, I'm not laughing now because I got invested back into the game...
I'm in a different boat because I play with a DM who delights in slaughtering as many characters as possible and I prefer roleplaying (of which there is none in our game). I'm hoping that 4th edition will allow me to have characters whose lifespan is not measured in rounds. I am welcoming of 4th edition because it reduces the ability of DMs to be abusive (which is, admitted, the way the game was played "back in the day" in the late 70s and early 80s).
Have you considered DMing your own game. I'm a killer DM myself but no one should be forced to play in a style they don't like.
They (Hasbro) might conceivably sell the actual pen-and-paper game system itself, but it wouldn't come with the D&D name or any product identity. The buyer would have to call it something different.
That'd be kinda pointless- D&D is entirely about the brand- without the moniker, it's just another anonymous RPG.
In any case, I think the possibility of Hasbro cannibalizing the D&D IP in the event of 4th edition not living up to expectations is a real, if remote, one.
Have you considered DMing your own game. I'm a killer DM myself but no one should be forced to play in a style they don't like.
You know what bites? My current or rather last DM was excellent in our first campaign... and then he started on this last one that just really, really sucked. Went from thinking outside the box to forcing us into the military from module 1....
I have to agree with all of the above. If 4E was what I saw in 2000, I wouldn't have bothered re-energising my D&D games with a new system. It would have just been too much a departure from what I was used to.
3E/3.5E took all the good and classic elements of the game, took out the ambiguity of a lot of rules and turned D&D into the best edition of the game so far. 4E will not be able to replicate that.
I'd dropped away from D&D entirely, so I'm sure I'd have happily jumped on the 4E bandwagon in 2000. I'd have trundled away and never imagined the richness of play that Arcana Evolved, Iron Heroes, Conan, C&C, True20 and others could have brought. And I'm fairly certain I'd have gone back to GURPS and CoC within 18 months, after I got sick of all the miniature heavy gameplay and cartoonish Health system.
Got a bit testy there at the end- sorry.
I think if WotC had released 4e back in 2000, it would not have been as great a hit as 3.0 (just as I think about 4e's release now). In fact, the outcry might have been even greater.
Anyway, regardless of the success or failure of 4e, WotC is very unlikely to sell the D&D IP. The pencil and paper RPG division of WotC is, ultimately, less profitable than the CCG and mini divisions (not to mention the novels and other media moneymakers). What may end up happening if 4e flops is D&D ends as a pencil and paper RPG. If we're lucky, WotC might decide to license another company to produce a D&D RPG (I can hope that they choose Paizo, after their track record with the magazines), but there's no guarantee of it.
The OGL, however, means that no matter what happens to the D&D name, the spirit of the game will live on.
|
The reality is that probably nothing currently under copyright will ever fall into the public domain.
Though companies who make their money on IP have very powerful lobbyists, I wouldn't go this far. Eventually, you'd run into constitutional difficulties - the Copyright Clause notes that IP rights are to be secured "for limited times." The entire point of the clause in the first place was to create incentives for people to publish ideas which could later benefit everyone by entering the public domain by allowing people to profit by publishing them. However, in the past century or so, the law has shifted to more of an idea-as-property scheme, which makes it easier to argue that copyright should be extended.
[/threadjack]
|
|
Wrong. Flat-out lie, in fact.No.
The evolutionary step would have been too big. 3E was the right system for that time. The d20 license was a great addition (though the OGL games that came along later were not so great).
Though 3E could have chugged along a little while longer it would have been in decline.
4E seems to be a solid system though it may feel like a different game. Only time will tell if it was the right game for right now.
How can it be a lie when I am telling you that I have yet to meet an OGL rules set that I like or that I think even rates as fair.
It's an opinion, a subjective statement, and cannot be a lie.
The are numerous OGL games that were/are excellent.
In your opinion I am sure there are - that's not my view.
Conan. A Game of Thrones. Arcana Unearthed/Evolved. Spycraft.
I don't like any of them. If I want low fantasy I'll play RuneQuest. If I want mid to high fantasy I'll just play 3.5 If I want to play modern/spy genre I'll play Top Secret or some flavor of Traveller or even GURPS.
They took the d20 engine and applied them to genres and areas that WotC was either unable or unwilling to do.
Which is why - to me - they all feel like D&D. I do not want a class/level/HP/d20 system for every genre. I want rules that feel like they fit not rules that could be wedged in to fit just because they were connected to D&D's popularity.
From my personal experience, in doing so, they showed me that the d20 engine was flexible enough to support the genres and types of games I wanted to run. OGL games + the d20 license allowed me to create the game I wanted to run and my players wanted to play.
I am glad you enjoy it - I do not. Again, that does not make me a liar.
It was only after I purchased Conan, Grim Tales, and other 3rd-party products that I purchased 3e D&D books.
Ok.
Oh yeah, and I'm pretty sure those awesome Pathfinder books are OGL also.
I was referring to games and rules sets - not adventures and campaign settings.
WotC isn't closing things down with the GSL b/c OGL games were inferior.
I never said that they were.
They're doing it because they don't want to have to compete with OGL games.
That is speculation - I don't disagree, mind you - but it is still speculation.
That's their perogative of course, but it's a move to protect their piece of the pie, not to protect the purity or quality of the game. To make a blanket statement saying that OGL games were inferior products is a crock of excrement in my opinion.
That's fine. You can think what you want but I have yet to meet a set of OGL rules that made me want to play them. I heard a bunch of folks rave about True 20 so I picked it up and was underwhelmed. I know 3.5 well enough that i do not need it hacked to bits like that.
You see it's all opinion.
I am in agreement with crosswiredmind. At the time 3e came out, I was using the "skills and powers" book to create my homebrew. 3e looked to incorperate much of what I was trying to due. The system worked for me. 4e is too different for my play style (then and now).
Wrong. Flat-out lie, in fact.No.
The evolutionary step would have been too big. 3E was the right system for that time. The d20 license was a great addition (though the OGL games that came along later were not so great).
Though 3E could have chugged along a little while longer it would have been in decline.
4E seems to be a solid system though it may feel like a different game. Only time will tell if it was the right game for right now.
How can it be a lie when I am telling you that I have yet to meet an OGL rules set that I like or that I think even rates as fair.
It's an opinion, a subjective statement, and cannot be a lie.
The are numerous OGL games that were/are excellent.In your opinion I am sure there are - that's not my view.
Conan. A Game of Thrones. Arcana Unearthed/Evolved. Spycraft.I don't like any of them. If I want low fantasy I'll play RuneQuest. If I want mid to high fantasy I'll just play 3.5 If I want to play modern/spy genre I'll play Top Secret or some flavor of Traveller or even GURPS.
They took the d20 engine and applied them to genres and areas that WotC was either unable or unwilling to do.Which is why - to me - they all feel like D&D. I do not want a class/level/HP/d20 system for every genre. I want rules that feel like they fit not rules that could be wedged in to fit just because they were connected to D&D's popularity.
From my personal experience, in doing so, they showed me that the d20 engine was flexible enough to support the genres and types of games I wanted to run. OGL games + the d20 license allowed me to create the game I wanted to run and my players wanted to play.I am glad you enjoy it - I do not. Again, that does not make me a liar.
It was only after I purchased Conan, Grim Tales, and other 3rd-party products that I purchased 3e D&D...You know what I love about your posts, crosswiredmind? You state things as if they are fact and the minute someone calls you on it you shift gears into opinion mode. It's almost as entertaining as your repeated posturing that pro-4e viewpoints are always taking the high road while 4e criticisms are taking the discussion into the gutter.
Now yes, my viewpoint is an opinion and your viewpoint is an opinion. So please stop writing as though your opinion is fact and I'll refrain from doing so as well.
|
|
You know what I love about your posts, crosswiredmind? You state things as if they are fact and the minute someone calls you on it you shift gears into opinion mode. It's almost as entertaining as your repeated posturing that pro-4e viewpoints are always taking the high road while 4e criticisms are taking the discussion into the gutter.
Now yes, my viewpoint is an opinion and your viewpoint is an opinion. So please stop writing as though your opinion is fact and I'll refrain from doing so as well.
I anyone says X is great, or X is not so great, how is it even possible that he or she could be stating a fact? It's a totally subjective statement. You did not "call me" on anything. You jumped to the conclusion that I was stating some kind of fact when I obviously was not.
My suggestion is that you think twice before branding anyone a liar when they are clearly using subjective language.
I called you on the fact that you frequently write things as though they are fact even though they are opinions that don't have enough evidence to make them any more plausible than an opposing viewpoint. You've got a hair-trigger when it comes to dismissing opposing viewpoints that have just as little fact as your own as meaningless conjecture.
You were dismissive about an entire range of products, that by any measure, (i.e. company statements on success of sales, continued support products and reviews, etc.) were good products. Not to your taste, fine. Straight-up D&D with all of its "D&Disms" isn't to my taste but I wouldn't claim that it sucks (in fact I still feel it's a great game), nor would I demean WotC products arbitrarily without providing specific examples or criticms.
In the past, I've just dismissed most of your posts and moved on. This time, I felt you were especially egregious in being dismissive of a wide range of companies and designers. You didn't state that it was your experience or opinion, you didn't acknowledge that although not your cup of tea they are popular, and you didn't cite any valid criticisms to support your claim. So I wrote my response the way I thought you would. Too strong? Didn't like it? Your perogative.
MY suggestion is to either cite your own biases for what they are, write in a more objective manner, or suck it up when others write as you do.