Search results

Because it isn't.

They weren't big deal changes in terms of how radical they were (abandoning the 6 stats, using a dice pool instead of a d20, no classes, etc.) The changes were very pleasant in what they accomplished, however.

Amen.

He doesn't seem to think so, at least not to the point of saying he disliked them. Maybe 1e-3e didn't give him what he felt should have been the D&D experience based on that particular forward, but it doesn't mean they weren't fun in their own way, or that he disliked them. Maybe now people...

"Your weapon belt snags on a sharp rock and you watch in horror as your blade falls with a clang to the bottom." Or, same idea, but the potion belt, so the upcoming combat has no enhancing potions. Or, enemies above are alerted, so they get a surprise round once the hero gets up there. As a...

I think the conservatism also shows in the description of "It was certainly a pretty radical departure of design from what came before and after"; 4e still had levels, the 6 stats, roll d20 and try to roll high, recognizable classes, hit points, coloured dragons, and on and on. "Radical" would...

So, this is completely true, not arguing this point... ...but the response to it (and a few others afterwards, about educating players and such) really shows how the viewpoint difference is pretty huge. It seems there's an aspect of the aforementioned conservatism that feels it's necessary to...

LOL. There's no "need to defend it's D&D-ness;" it just IS D&D. Established facts need no defense.

Sure, their own feelings matter (to themselves, anyway), but they're irrelevant when identifying a game as "Dungeons and Dragons." The name is right there, it's referred to as D&D all the way through...it's just Dungeons and Dragons. It just is. That you didn't like it doesn't change its...

Not at all. Enough people still didn't like that iteration of D&D, so that the subsequent edition of D&D was different enough from that version of D&D, but it's all D&D. It's not hard to understand.

But all you can say is that it doesn't feel like D&D to you. That doesn't mean it isn't D&D. I am not a fan of 3e (except under specific circumstances) at all, but I would never think "that's not D&D."

It's not complicated. Only WotC can make real D&D. And they did so, putting out 4e. Some people tried it and said "This does feel like D&D to me." That's their perception. What else could it be? Hence, the accuracy of my comment above.

The words "Dungeons and Dragons" are right there on the covers.

Except it is...so I guess the problem is with those people's perception.

Yeah, I loved reading it...but if it were a supers game and I was a player? Yeah, no.

Would having SoS spells be subject to hp gatekeeping resolve the issue somewhat? 13thAge does this; you can paralyze someone, but you need to beat them down a bit first.

I sympathize with the whole of your post, but this part right here? This is what made us switch game systems. I was converting all my awesome 2e Al-Qadim stuff to 5e, and for a while it was good, but...the main enemies tend to be spellcasters, and 2 of the PCs had counterspell. That was that...

Sure! In fact, here it is again, with some bolded parts to help you understand it wasn't an absolute truth. "Yes, actually. Those priorities, though, I have found, are better served through video games like Baldur's Gate, or campaign games like Roll Player Adventures, Tainted Grail, etc...

...where am I dressing it up as objective fact?

So that's similar to what was called "competitive play" back in the day.