Phentari wrote:I made this observation elseboard:  frequently, when people discover that I don't care for 4e, they accuse me of just "being afraid of change/progress."

The thing is, I started with the Holmes blue boxed basic set.  I then switched to first edition, and liked it.  When second edition came along, I tried that and liked it.  When third edition came along, I tried THAT and liked it.  It was different, but I was ready to try something new.  When 3.5 came along, I wasn't exactly thrilled at buying slightly-modified versions of the same rulebooks, but I tried it and liked it.

Then 4e came along.  I playtested it.  I didn't like it.  I hoped they would make some changes based on playtester recommendations.  When it was released, I tried it again.  Again, I didn't like it.

So I question the whole "You just don't like change" mantra.  I liked change just fine for three and a half editions; I just don't like THIS change.

I have to agree with this.  I too started playing years ago with the Basic Set.  Then Advanced, and then 2nd Ed.  They all have their idiosyncracies, but I liked them all and never really had a problem going from one to the other.  I think this is because they all still had that intangible D&D "Feel."

Then 3rd Edition came along and yes, that was a more extensive rules change but I tried it out and found that I liked that too.   Definitely a different approach, but to me it still FELT like D&D.  

4th Ed just doesn't FEEL like D&D to me.  I can't put my finger on what exactly it is that makes me feel that way.  And by saying this I certainly don't mean to trash the game, I know alot of people play it and enjoy and that's a good thing but it just isn't for me.  (And I know alot of folks here would say the same thing about 3.5)

So when I say I don't like 4th Ed it isn't like I'm just being an edition nazi, or that I haven't tried it.  I have, and I feel like it's just missing something.

I believe somebody here posted once that 4th Edition is a fine game system, it just should have been given a different name.  I'm paraphrasing here but I think that statement really covers it for me.

Agent Cooper wrote:

I have to agree with this.  I too started playing years ago with the Basic Set.  Then Advanced, and then 2nd Ed.  They all have their idiosyncracies, but I liked them all and never really had a problem going from one to the other.  I think this is because they all still had that intangible D&D "Feel."

Then 3rd Edition came along and yes, that was a more extensive rules change but I tried it out and found that I liked that too.   Definitely a different approach, but to me it still FELT like D&D.  

4th Ed just doesn't FEEL like D&D to me.  I can't put my finger on what exactly it is that makes me feel that way.  And by saying this I certainly don't mean to trash the game, I know alot of people play it and enjoy and that's a good thing but it just isn't for me.  (And I know alot of folks here would say the same thing about 3.5)

So when I say I don't like 4th Ed it isn't like I'm just being an edition nazi, or that I haven't tried it.  I have, and I feel like it's just missing something.

I believe somebody here posted once that 4th Edition is a fine game system, it just should have been given a different name.  I'm paraphrasing here but I think that statement really covers it for me.

The perfect solution:

Offer three D&D gaming experiences.  First would be "Classic" D&D, hearkening back to the days of yore.  It would resemble Swords & Wizardry, Labyrinth Lord or even OSRIC without actually being a page for page, word for word, reprint of the old rulebooks. Honestly, the Hackmaster rulebook (cleaned up to get rid of the giggles) would have fit the bill here.

"Modern" or "New" D&D would have been a continuation of the 3rd edition engine that was so popular, and looked a lot like the Pathfinder system.  For all the people who have joined the game since 2000 and are making the Pathfinder system so popular.

Lastly, we would have "D&D Miniature Wars" which is basically a take on 4E with maybe even more emphasis on large scale combat (ala Warhammer or Battletech).  Would have brought in lots of bucks as the kiddies would have to assemble armies in much the same fashion at they do with Warhammer or Battletech.  No I don't count the "Chainmail" crap of a few years ago as this type of game because like WH and BT there would have been roleplaying aspects, yet it would also be a tactical game.

Then again I don't know crap about marketing or whatever so maybe they  thought about it and didn't think it would work.  

Mike B.