|
It's always interesting when gamers accuse Wotc of appealing to the MMO market. But TSR and pre 4E wotc did not such thing. Yeah sorry to disappoint but TSR and Wotc not only tried to appeal to the video game generation. They had video games for 1E, 2E, and 3E. So many video games of the time borrowed or outright stole concepts for D&D. The eight hour rest period. The standard four party group with the names altered so they could not be sued. To me 3E/PF plays like a video game in some respects. Go out adventuring then when one runs out of spells and resources go back to the home base to rest. Or find a secluded spot. Not unlike many old and current video games.
To be fair yes I agree that the Wotc boards can be toxic for those who dislike 4E. So was this one for the longest time. If one even mentioned liking 4E the PFAVengers came down on you like a ton of bricks. It also took Paizo months to do something about it as well. So in this case neither forums were very welcoming. Once they cracked down on the anti-4E BS then it was more welcoming. Otherwise one could start a random thread about anything and then a anti-4E poster would come along just to slag 4E. It was out of control imo. Talk about magic and one would come along and go "thank god pf magic is not like 4E it's a mmo" and other such helpful statements.
In terms of Next. I'm not sure I want to invest in another version of D&D. Just tired of the edition train. As well Next has to knock my socks off. It has to give me something new. Not a rehashed older version of D&D with a few tweaks. I'm also feeling less love for Pathfinder as well. Too many flavorful and fluff options. Not enough rules or crunch. Craft Ooze is a perfect example of a very flavorful feat. Yet the effects for the most part are useless. Yay I get a mindless ooze with no loyalty to the creator. How is that going to be useful to me in the long run. I can use it in combat as it might attack the group. I can't use the ozze to guard the group home base. Not unless it's secluded as it might wander off and kill someone.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Diffan you do realize you are in the home of the best so to speak? The nice safe bubble the mods at the WoTC board like to project around 4E do not exist here.
And I couldn't care any less.
People will directly tell you what they do not like about 4E and you will not have a chorus of the usual suspects making up every excuse under the sun when here it is a fundamental dislike of the 4E rules system that drove us away form 4E in the 1st place. My PFRPG PDF still has the 2009 watermark on it.
Um, ok? I don't really see the point due to this being the 4E and Beyond place of the boards but if people complain about anything, expect to be called out on it. This doesn't even have to be 4E, it could be a host of other things. Further, there was a lot of stuff people didn't like about WotC before 4E even launched. So I think it's a fair statement to say that it's a culmination of a lot of factors, not just the mechanics of 4E alone.
I kind of prefer OSR games these days but Paizo kept the bed warm so to speak and Golarion filled a hole after they blew up the Realms. I had fun porting Red Manrtis Assassin to Castles and Crusades anyway.
Another edition another boycott maybe if we sink 2 in a row WoTC will get the message. I'll buy the start box and see if my players want to try the adventure a lot of big ifs beyond that as I do not see heavy D&DN purchases unless they do a stellar jopb somehow. Modular= big whoop I have 2nd ed for that and I do not have to mod out martial healing to play it.
Honestly, what message? I don't know how much more open WotC can truly be? The playtest was a 2-year long thing that ANYONE could get into. Literally NO strings attached. If the new game doesn't appeal to the fans, they really only have themselves to blame. And if the majority of fans really wanted OSR-style mechanics, I feel they should have got on the ball to make that happen with the new system.
The fact is, if they DIDN'T and it was a large majority of modern gamers who took the time to do the surveys and actually playtest the material ALL the way then it's not going to be shocking to see that the design went in that direction. If WotC tanks, I really hope it's for a solid 50 years. That way MOST of the people who have been clinging to the tropes and sacred cows will finally move on and when the game reemerges people might have a bit of an open mind when it comes to this particular IP.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Where 4th Ed was heavily mechanics based, NEXT is the exact opposite. I cannot see this version working in a living campaign style, the rules are simply too loose and rely on the story telling aspects to run the game. There will be a ton of table variation. One of the table's GMs at last year's Gencon recommended not using minis....as they take away the imagination.
Not working for living is a bonus. Living games need magic shops, formulaic adventures and lots, lots rule
Freedom sounds lovely to me
Where 4th Ed was heavily mechanics based, NEXT is the exact opposite. I cannot see this version working in a living campaign style, the rules are simply too loose and rely on the story telling aspects to run the game. There will be a ton of table variation. One of the table's GMs at last year's Gencon recommended not using minis....as they take away the imagination.
Not working for living is a bonus. Living games need magic shops, formulaic adventures and lots, lots rule
Freedom sounds lovely to me
I'm 50/50 on this.
Personally, it sounds great to me too. On the other hand, it isn't so great for the game itself if it can't support an Organized Play system, as that's one of the major promotional tools.
So, short-term, I'd get a game that gives me a system I'd enjoy. Long term, that game may not survive. Long term survival and ongoing support (something in the region of ten years, ideally) is something I find important in a game, too. Pathfinder is my preferred game, despite having an underlying system I don't particularly enjoy as-written - that's how important things like long-term support and an interesting setting are to me.
Before the War of the Lance... there was no divine magic. That cut out a good portion of the Classes. During the War of the Lance... That's ALL that was going on. Everything revolved around that one story... After Summer Flame they broke the world again cutting out or messing with all the magic this time... .It cut out exactly two... Clerics and Druids, whom Dragonlance treated as clerics as they also were followers of the True Gods. Paladins were simply not part of the setting that I could see, and Rangers simply did not have spells.
I'm pretty sure that Huma Dragonsbane is/was a quintessential D&D paladin, and part of Sturm's whole shtick is that he's not quite paladin material. (Read: Sturm's player didn't roll high enough to meet the steep paladin prereqs!)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For those worried about a revised edition (or even 6e) coming down the line soon, this article might put some of those fears to rest:
http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20140623
Basically, it looks like WotC will continue with some rigor and possibly even player input into any "fixes" they feel are needed. Basically, Errata done right IMHO.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Another edition another boycott maybe if we sink 2 in a row WoTC will get the message. I'll buy the start box and see if my players want to try the adventure a lot of big ifs beyond that as I do not see heavy D&DN purchases unless they do a stellar jopb somehow. Modular= big whoop I have 2nd ed for that and I do not have to mod out martial healing to play it.Honestly, what message? I don't know how much more open WotC can truly be? The playtest was a 2-year long thing that ANYONE could get into. Literally NO strings attached. If the new game doesn't appeal to the fans, they really only have themselves to blame. And if the majority of fans really wanted OSR-style mechanics, I feel they should have got on the ball to make that happen with the new system.
I particularly enjoy the unintentional irony of "Maybe if I boycott another edition, WotC will come around to my way of thinking...so I'll buy the starter set." :D
If WotC tanks, I really hope it's for a solid 50 years. That way MOST of the people who have been clinging to the tropes and sacred cows will finally move on and when the game reemerges people might have a bit of an open mind when it comes to this particular IP.
I'm not one of those doom-and-gloomers fretting about D&D being canned, but I agree that even that result of 5e could be a positive in the long run. I mean, if it were picked up again in 50 years, who knows, it might just end up being an ill-conceived rehash of what 'feels like D&D' written by gamers who won't have actually played D&D...but maybe, just maybe, a future D&D team would actually reconsider which of D&D's many quirks are actually important!
Pathfinder!
WotC is claiming in that article that there will not be new editions every so often, but a slowly changing ruleset.
I'll believe it when I see it. In all probability, there will be D&D Next.5 in 2017 and Prepare for A6venture! in 2019.
You called?
(In fairness, I'm impressed we got to page 11!)
as I find my free time becomes less and less the more I manage my time between work, family, friends and a spouse, the more I look for a system that gives me something closer to what I want, so I don't have to spend a long time "fixing" the parts I don't like.
This. 100x this.
Now if only I could get such a system with an organized play system as robust as PFS and adventure/setting content of Paizo quality.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Diffan you do realize you are in the home of the best so to speak? The nice safe bubble the mods at the WoTC board like to project around 4E do not exist here.
People will directly tell you what they do not like about 4E and you will not have a chorus of the usual suspects making up every excuse under the sun when here it is a fundamental dislike of the 4E rules system that drove us away form 4E in the 1st place.
Replace "dislike" with "misunderstanding", and you get much, much closer to the truth. The last two pages of this thread are a perfect illustration of that.
Based on some of the comments in this thread, I pre-ordered the 5E Dungeon Master's Guide. As I stated earlier, while I won't switch away from 3.5 with a dash of Pathfinder, hopefully the new D&D rules will have something to offer which can enhance the game I run already.
I did not pick up 4ed core rules as did not really think the 4ed rules would blend well with what 3.5 already did.
I am running a new 3.5 campaign starting in the fall and one of the changes I did make was streamlining the Skills a bit (based on Pathfinder). One of my players who has played in 4ed stated that a similar streamlining took place in 4ed and he was all for this new idea, so perhaps I was wrong (I suppose my assumption is the basis for your argument Scott though I have never hated on 4ed in this or any other forum).
One 4ed book I did pick up though was the Dark Sun DMG and I thought that was well done.
There are actually quite a few areas where 4e and PF took similar steps. Consolidated skill lists are one thing; racial modifiers that make every race good at a variety of classes is another; both games made a go at somewhat codified rules for non-combat. (4e skill challenges and PF chase guidelines.) I'm sure there are more, but I don't regularly play PF so it's hard to remember.
There are actually quite a few areas where 4e and PF took similar steps. Consolidated skill lists are one thing; racial modifiers that make every race good at a variety of classes is another; both games made a go at somewhat codified rules for non-combat. (4e skill challenges and PF chase guidelines.) I'm sure there are more, but I don't regularly play PF so it's hard to remember.
Simplifying non-standard attack actions, giving magic-wielding classes the the ability to do low-power magic things all day, simplifying cross-class skills, and so on.
I've followed the 5E testing closely. One of my play group actually did the whole test from start to finish while the rest of us declined. He loves 5E, but as a whole our play group is sticking with 4E for now.
We all use the online 4E CB, Compendium, etc and all subscribe to D&D Insider. We're a little nervous to see what they do with the current online tools when the move happens next month for the 5E official launch.
Mearls in on record saying that they plan on keeping the DDI tools active as long as enough people continue to pay for them. They're not planning on discontinuing them just because 5e comes out.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Unlikely to switch here. 5e seems to be going back to 2 e. What i like about 3.5 is the customization: getting to make it MY character. Something largely missing from 2e and 4e.
Unlikely to switch here. 5e seems to be going back to 2 e. What i like about 3.5 is the customization: getting to make it MY character. Something largely missing from 2e and 4e.
I find 2nd ed more modular than 3rd ed but I have a lot of the 2nd ed books. In the PHB 3rd ed is more build your own PC than 2nd ed. 2nd ed actually has a point buy table for a build your own class in the DMG so you could have a fighter type using arcane spells if you wanted RAW.
2nd and 3rd ed kind of being favorites of mine in D&D editions although I like BECMI and 1srt ed as well. A heavily modified version of 2nd ed (using splat books) can resemble 3rd ed with less problems in terms of number bloat.
I use Tome of Battle in my 3.5 game (both for my PC's and NPC's) and like the supplement. It seems that was the direction that 4ed went in with their Fighter classes.There are actually quite a few areas where 4e and PF took similar steps. Consolidated skill lists are one thing; racial modifiers that make every race good at a variety of classes is another; both games made a go at somewhat codified rules for non-combat. (4e skill challenges and PF chase guidelines.) I'm sure there are more, but I don't regularly play PF so it's hard to remember.Simplifying non-standard attack actions, giving magic-wielding classes the the ability to do low-power magic things all day, simplifying cross-class skills, and so on.
I use it constantly when I play/run v3.5 and I think it's one of the more solid supplements mechanically speaking. It still doesn't match full-spellcasters at higher levels but it was a start in the right direction. 4E definitely took cues from the book, even incorporating certain names like White Raven into some of the 4E Exploits.
For D&D:Next, it appears we're getting a sub-path of the Fighter called the Battle Master who uses things like Maneuvers and can do stuff like grant HP and bonus actions (ala Warlord). While I still might think it's a poor substitution for a full Warlord class, I'm glad we're getting at least that much.
I'm really not a fan of the word "Switch". It implies that a system or game is being abandoned for something else. I've switched from AD&D 2E to 3E and then to v3.5 / Pathfinder and then to 4E and then to D&D:Next. I still play v3.5/PF and 4E because they do things that the other doesn't. Further we still have characters and adventures that are on-going in those editions that needs wrapping up:
Adventures for Pathfinder such as
• "The Hook Mountain Massacre" (where my lvl 10 Rogue is just all sorts of fun to play)
Revised 3rd Edition:
• Forgotten Realms high-level campaign "Anauroch: The Empire of Shade" that just got started. Seriously we just killed (well, my character killed) Scyulla Darkhope in a vicious aerial battle between her and my Pegasus Knight of Cormyr at the end of Shadowdale: Scouring of the Land. How awesome is that?! Now we have to take it to the Shades and mess up their plans (which, even though I know still bring about the SPellplague, but who cares?!)
• Forgotten Realms: Heroes of the Moonsea (whoop, racked up two PC deaths in that one!) where we run ALL published adventures from 1st through 20th level. The Burning Plague was first, followed by some random encounters and kicking Zhentarim butt and going into the Sons of Gruumsh adventure. From there it's off to help stave off the Pool of Raidance in the terrifying forest dungeon of Myth Drannor and then we finish up with busting drow heads in City of the Spiderqueen. Piece of cake!
4th Edition
• Dark Sun campaign where things are really crazy. In our last fight in the pre-made adventure my boor Garrick met a grizzly fate and was stomped on by a really big and angry female Goliath. She literally made me eat the curb. Hopefully I'll be avenged by my new Dray Warlord!!
• Player-avatar "Us in the Realms" game that has been going on since 2005 where we play ourselves in the Forgotten Realms. Seriously, this is probably our biggest game and longest one too. Currently we're all 15th level!!
• Thunderspire Labyrinth game that redone for the Forgotten Realms. Our party composition is a TON of fun with air genasi and shadar-kai running around in Corymr. We don't make a lot of friends, lol.
• Epic Campaign of Epicness where we all play different heroic characters from 90's cartoons. Seriously, it's awesome to see Snake Eyes leap off of She-Ra's pegasus into a cluster of Footclan robots while Link from Legends of Zelda cuts down evil Cobra enemies with the Master Sword.
I mean, NONE of these are done and some on the verge of being finished and I don't see 5E's coming as a reason for me to stop attempting to complete them. I also don't see them as a reason to NOT try and/or play D&D:Next.
I use it constantly when I play/run v3.5 and I think it's one of the more solid supplements mechanically speaking. It still doesn't match full-spellcasters at higher levels but it was a start in the right direction. 4E definitely took cues from the book, even incorporating certain names like White Raven into some of the 4E Exploits.I use Tome of Battle in my 3.5 game (both for my PC's and NPC's) and like the supplement. It seems that was the direction that 4ed went in with their Fighter classes.There are actually quite a few areas where 4e and PF took similar steps. Consolidated skill lists are one thing; racial modifiers that make every race good at a variety of classes is another; both games made a go at somewhat codified rules for non-combat. (4e skill challenges and PF chase guidelines.) I'm sure there are more, but I don't regularly play PF so it's hard to remember.Simplifying non-standard attack actions, giving magic-wielding classes the the ability to do low-power magic things all day, simplifying cross-class skills, and so on.
One of my great disappointments as a gamer is that I only got to actually play a ToB class once, for one session before that group disbanded. Shortly afterwards I got my core 4e books, and the rest is history.
Anyhow, yeah, 4e classes share a few similarities with the ToB classes, but I've actually heard that the ToB was written after 4e development had begun. I don't know how much truth there is to that assertion, but I do know that the two are not an exact match. While ToB classes are all about per-encounter maneuvers, 4e classes* have at-will, encounter, daily, and utility powers. While edition warriors will insist that this makes all 4e classes the same, they end up playing very differently at the table, even within combat.
*The original 4e classes, at least.
I do wonder where all the rumors of discountinuing DDI for 4e came from.
Possibly from gamers making poorly-worded speculations about DDI; or possibly from gamers carelessly reading well-worded speculations about DDI; or possibly from good ol' fashioned hysteria.
For my part, I don't doubt Mearls' sincerity that DDI won't be canceled just because of 5e. But notice how he words it: "We're not planning to discontinue DDI." That leaves the door wide open for someone to later decide "After much consideration, we've decided to cancel DDI because not many fans are using it, and because Reasons." 'Not many' is an ambiguous condition, and considering WotC's high turnover rate, some future Mearls-replacement might not even realize whatever vague promises he made in 2014.
For the sake of fellow 4e fans, I hope my doubts are unfounded, but, well...I'm just glad that I never got hooked on DDI.
|
I'm really not a fan of the word "Switch". It implies that a system or game is being abandoned for something else. I've switched from AD&D 2E to 3E and then to v3.5 / Pathfinder and then to 4E and then to D&D:Next. I still play v3.5/PF and 4E because they do things that the other doesn't. Further we still have characters and adventures that are on-going in those editions that needs wrapping up:
I think the casual gamer may only have time for one game and one system. So when they commit to something thats it. They invest in that system and thats what they play.
I'm really not a fan of the word "Switch". It implies that a system or game is being abandoned for something else. I've switched from AD&D 2E to 3E and then to v3.5 / Pathfinder and then to 4E and then to D&D:Next. I still play v3.5/PF and 4E because they do things that the other doesn't. Further we still have characters and adventures that are on-going in those editions that needs wrapping up:I think the casual gamer may only have time for one game and one system. So when they commit to something thats it. They invest in that system and thats what they play.
Yeesh, I couldn't do that. There are times I just get bruned out playing the same system over and over (including 4e). I don't know if our style of rotating DMs is common or not, but it allows for freshness and for multiple charaters.
All of the online support for 3.5 has remained online and fully operational, to this day. These are free articles that they aren't getting anything out of, but they keep them online anyways.
The idea that they would discontinue what is now a low-cost service (it won't require further updates) which people are still paying for is absurd.
That's not really a valid comparison. Most of the material you're referring to is just data in standard formats (PDFs, HTML, JPEGs, etc.), whereas most of the 4E stuff (the Character Builder, the Monster Builder, the Compendium, etc.) is software, which relies on external components -- all of which can (and will) die. These components languish, in which case they become security holes (and are removed from the network), or calls are deprecated and eliminated (and so stop working). Databases stop getting patches. Operating systems are replaced. That's just the nature of the thing.
I'm not saying it's going to happen tomorrow, or next month, or even next year, but software -- especially modern software -- has to be maintained, or it breaks. It's not just a matter of leaving the lights on.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm really not a fan of the word "Switch". It implies that a system or game is being abandoned for something else. I've switched from AD&D 2E to 3E and then to v3.5 / Pathfinder and then to 4E and then to D&D:Next. I still play v3.5/PF and 4E because they do things that the other doesn't. Further we still have characters and adventures that are on-going in those editions that needs wrapping up:I think the casual gamer may only have time for one game and one system. So when they commit to something thats it. They invest in that system and thats what they play.
I play a few things, but mostly it's focused around Pathfinder as our "main" game (the one all the time and money investment goes into). Any system the size of PF/D&D is going to mean switching from buying one to buying another if we adopt it an any major way. There's also only so much of the same genre we can tolerate before wanting a change, and given our campaigns tend to last up to two or three months there's not room for many different games in that rotation. Any alternatives in there tend to be single-book games or those that have maybe half a dozen supplements at most (although Doctor Who: Adventures in Time and Space is the main exception here, slowly growing at the rate of one sourcebook per Doctor.)
So yeah, for me it would be a switch - it would mean clearing the shelves of Pathfinder books to make room for whatever new 20+ book system is going to take its place, and terminating my Paizo subs in order to be able to afford to buy those new books.
That's why for me 5e is going to be just the three core books, to take up a little bit of shelf space at the side and not require any ongoing expense. That's why my piles of 3/3.5 and 4e books are now in storage, and my 2e collection scattered to the winds via eBay (my beloved BECMI books are still on the shelf, however, as you'd have to claw those from my cold, dead hands.)
Yeesh, I couldn't do that. There are times I just get bruned out playing the same system over and over (including 4e). I don't know if our style of rotating DMs is common or not, but it allows for freshness and for multiple charaters.I'm really not a fan of the word "Switch". It implies that a system or game is being abandoned for something else. I've switched from AD&D 2E to 3E and then to v3.5 / Pathfinder and then to 4E and then to D&D:Next. I still play v3.5/PF and 4E because they do things that the other doesn't. Further we still have characters and adventures that are on-going in those editions that needs wrapping up:I think the casual gamer may only have time for one game and one system. So when they commit to something thats it. They invest in that system and thats what they play.
It's not just casual gamers. I had a group that rotated DMs, and one guy ran his favorite scifi rpg when his turn to GM came up, but I just don't game enough to ever get burnt out on one game. I've gone for years of my life without rping, and the most frequently I've ever been lucky enough to rp was once a week...minus about one week a month, when half the group couldn't make it for whatever reason.
Yes, pity me, for I am a sad sad panda. :(
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the casual gamer may only have time for one game and one system. So when they commit to something thats it. They invest in that system and thats what they play.
While I do not consider myself a casual gamer, I only have the time and funds for one major game system at a time (and by major, I mean a system the size of Pathfinder/3.x). I will play something else now and then just to switch things up, but like Matt Thomason said above, these other systems tend towards smaller, single-book games.
But frankly, I am tired of buying all of the same material over and over again. Pathfinder, for me, is the last time I'll do that; and when Paizo decides to make a 2nd edition for Pathfinder, I won't be making the switch then either.
But this is all a moot point for myself really, for as I've said upthread, I switched back to 2nd edition AD&D a couple of years ago...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
* Definitely liked a bunch of mechanics from 4e. Have said that again and again. Not seeing much I like in Next.
* Definitely found the doublebarreled naming convention of 4e monsters a complete turnoff. Reminded me of Guild Wars. Which I liked, but the reduction of monsters to archetypes in my TT game was not something I liked. That and the fact monsters weren't built with the ability to have classes. All too simplified and LCD for my tastes.
* Definitely liked a bunch of mechanics from 4e. Have said that again and again. Not seeing much I like in Next.
* Definitely found the doublebarreled naming convention of 4e monsters a complete turnoff. Reminded me of Guild Wars. Which I liked, but the reduction of monsters to archetypes in my TT game was not something I liked. That and the fact monsters weren't built with the ability to have classes. All too simplified and LCD for my tastes.
I can sympathize with the distaste for 4e's double-word names -- I can't fathom the nerdrage that it provokes, but I can understand the turnoff -- but I don't understand the 'monsters can't have classes' complaint.
Is it an example of the '4e monsters aren't built like PCs' complaint, or is it actually its own issue? I ask because I have no problem building 4e monsters with classes. I can imagine someone coming directly from 3.x without bothering to even skim the monster-creation section of the DMG going "Bwuh, how do I add fighter levels to my orcs?!" But in the end, it's not impossible or even difficult -- just different. 4e requires a bit of judgment on the DM's part -- just enough to know which class features are really important -- while 3.x requires more number-crunching and system know-how. 4e is result-oriented, while 3.x is process-oriented.
|
|
Yeesh, I couldn't do that. There are times I just get bruned out playing the same system over and over (including 4e). I don't know if our style of rotating DMs is common or not, but it allows for freshness and for multiple charaters.
I think the casual gamer may only have time for one game and one system. So when they commit to something thats it. They invest in that system and thats what they play.
We rotate too. However, when we change games we usually change genre as well. Might be a quirk of my group but we find a system fits each genre for us. So when we pick a fantasy system that's the system we use when playing fantasy. We tried doing fantasy with other systems like SW and BRP system etc. but none of them scratched the itch.
5E has the same thing going against it that 4E had. My group is well acquainted with 3E after a decade of using the system we just know how to smash that square peg in a triangle hole. The thought of going through that process again isn't something my casual players are warm to. PF was an easy leap because its really just a coat of paint on an old system.
The adventures are huge for us too. Paizo just churns out good products in that department and keeps us coming back. I am eager to see WOTC get into adventures as well and hope they can offer some competition to Paizo and drive the bar higher and higher.
The free 5E basic PDF is huge and I applaud WOTC for it. Its a possible way for WOTC to get their foot in the door and am glad they are throwing it out there. If it doesn't win over those who left, I hope it draws new comers.
Might be a quirk of my group but we find a system fits each genre for us. So when we pick a fantasy system that's the system we use when playing fantasy.
Mostly the same here, aside from dragging out an old favorite from time to time.
I tend to get used to how a ruleset works, where to find things, and generally get comfortable enough with it that it can take a back seat and not waste half the session processing the mechanics. That just adds yet another reason why I don't want to switch. I've reached the point of comfort, so give me things I can add to my game rather than a system that makes me need to buy all-new versions of the things I already have just to be able to do the things I can already do :) As I've mentioned in other threads, I'm *more* than happy to replace my CRB with revised editions every 2-3 years as incremental changes will almost certainly need to be made.
Kinda related - It'd be nice if the RPG industry could settle on a standard for naming game systems. "Edition" still feels misused to me when applied to D&D, because 3e and 4e were new systems, as opposed to 2e that felt more like an evolution of 1e. Bottom line, 3e was a new game, so was 4e, and neither were really a new edition of the previous incarnation. 3.5e I'll quite happily accept as a newer edition of 3e.
It feels kinda dishonest to market something as a new edition when that usually implies it's been revised and corrected rather than thrown out in favor of a complete redesign. I don't mind trying out a new game, but please don't try to sell it to me as being an newer version of the one I'm already playing. That's like telling me Linux is a new edition of Windows, they may be somewhat similar in concept but they're not exactly compatible out of the box.
Although I think your position is more common, the "edition" thing doesnt bug me so much, but I suspect it's because I dont pay much attention to mechanics. The reason AD&D, 2E, 3.5 and 4E are all editions of the same game in my mind is that the flavor is relatively constant. The mechanics are basically just different ways of expressing that underlying flavor, in my view. Hence any changes are a relatively trivial thing.
In contrast, Pathfinder doesnt feel like D&D to me because it has its own flavor (monsters/campaign settings/etcetera).
Although I think your position is more common, the "edition" thing doesnt bug me so much, but I suspect it's because I dont pay much attention to mechanics. The reason AD&D, 2E, 3.5 and 4E are all editions of the same game in my mind is that the flavor is relatively constant. The mechanics are basically just different ways of expressing that underlying flavor, in my view. Hence any changes are a relatively trivial thing.
O.o
"Well, it's only the rules that have changed."
That... actually kinda makes sense to me explained that way (although I still wish there was a clearer indication of whether an edition breaks compatibility or not, as many other RPGs manage iterative editions without doing so.)