|
2 years ago ::
Jun 26, 2011 - 10:41AM
#451
|
Date Joined:
Feb 12, 2007
|
Post Essentials, my local LFR group has gone from 3-4 tables/week to 1-2 tables/week. (I'm not in any of them--essentials [and a crazy work schedule] sapped my interest in the game.)
Check out my blog--now REACTIVATED with DnDnext feedback!
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jun 26, 2011 - 10:48AM
#452
|
|
|
Post Essentials, my local LFR group has gone from 3-4 tables/week to 1-2 tables/week. (I'm not in any of them--essentials [and a crazy work schedule] sapped my interest in the game.)
As a longtime LFR player, the decline predated Essentials and has a lot of contributing factors that don't have anything to do with Essentials.
...whatever
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jun 26, 2011 - 11:25AM
#453
|
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek
Date Joined:
May 31, 2003
|
Post Essentials, my local LFR group has gone from 3-4 tables/week to 1-2 tables/week. (I'm not in any of them--essentials [and a crazy work schedule] sapped my interest in the game.)
As a longtime LFR player, the decline predated Essentials and has a lot of contributing factors that don't have anything to do with Essentials.
Does it help you sleep better at night when you try and convince yourself that Essentials has nothing to do with the decline of the game?
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jun 26, 2011 - 11:28AM
#454
|
|
|
Post Essentials, my local LFR group has gone from 3-4 tables/week to 1-2 tables/week. (I'm not in any of them--essentials [and a crazy work schedule] sapped my interest in the game.)
As a longtime LFR player, the decline predated Essentials and has a lot of contributing factors that don't have anything to do with Essentials.
Does it help you sleep better at night when you try and convince yourself that Essentials has nothing to do with the decline of the game?
I believe some kleenexes and a unnamed activity fills that role or a lot of people. 
Resident Socialist and Undying Troublemaker
Martyr of Section 1, 2 and 4
Original Troll of the House of Trolls
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jun 26, 2011 - 11:30AM
#455
|
|
|
Post Essentials, my local LFR group has gone from 3-4 tables/week to 1-2 tables/week. (I'm not in any of them--essentials [and a crazy work schedule] sapped my interest in the game.)
As a longtime LFR player, the decline predated Essentials and has a lot of contributing factors that don't have anything to do with Essentials.
Does it help you sleep better at night when you try and convince yourself that Essentials has nothing to do with the decline of the game?
I sleep just fine. The decline of LFR is LFR's fault. I don't see any decline for D&D, I just see a bunch of whiners wanting it to be so and tinfoil hats preaching that the sky is falling.
...whatever
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jun 26, 2011 - 11:34AM
#456
|
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek
Date Joined:
May 31, 2003
|
Post Essentials, my local LFR group has gone from 3-4 tables/week to 1-2 tables/week. (I'm not in any of them--essentials [and a crazy work schedule] sapped my interest in the game.)
As a longtime LFR player, the decline predated Essentials and has a lot of contributing factors that don't have anything to do with Essentials.
Does it help you sleep better at night when you try and convince yourself that Essentials has nothing to do with the decline of the game?
I sleep just fine. The decline of LFR is LFR's fault. I don't see any decline for D&D, I just see a bunch of whiners wanting it to be so and tinfoil hats preaching that the sky is falling.
Do you have any stats to back you up on your claim that LFR hasn't suffered because of Essentials?
How is it strictly LFR's fault?
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jun 26, 2011 - 11:38AM
#457
|
|
|
The decline of LFR started with and is primarily the fault of a managment snafu back at the beginning of "year 2" where new adventures stopped being produced. It happened long before Essentials, and is something they still haven't recovered from.
...whatever
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jun 26, 2011 - 12:01PM
#458
|
Date Joined:
Jun 27, 2008
|
Do you have any stats to back you up on your claim that LFR hasn't suffered because of Essentials?
How is it strictly LFR's fault?
To get both sides of this: Can you prove that LFR hasn't suffered because of changes in how LFR is handled?
Think about, realize you can't - you cannot, with definitive proof prove that Essentials ruined LFR more than LFR ruined itself.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jun 26, 2011 - 12:15PM
#459
|
Date Joined:
Sep 26, 2001
|
However, does anyone find it strange that there are still complainers of the system, or 3.5 hold-outs as they seem to be called, a year or so after 4th was released? I think the mistake was made by rendering everything, in a practical sense, from 1 to 3.5 as useless.
Nothing was rendered useless. Those games still exist, they just aren't supported. Every edition has basically invalidated the previous, with the exception of maybe 1e to 2e. That was the smallest change, but still significant. 3e isn't compatible with AD&D any more than 4e is.
Lack of further support doesn't make old stuff go away, but it does pull attention and interest away from it. In the 90s, I was very fond of Mage:the Ascension. WW replaced it with Mage:the Awakening, which isn't nearly so compelling (though mechanically less wonky), and it's very hard to find a Mage game now. 1e and 2e really were compatible enough that you could keep using old 1e stuff in a 2e game with few issues. 3.0 could use very little of 2e, mechanically (though nothing stopped you from using the glut of setting material, if you wanted to). 3.0 and 3.5 weren't quite as compatible, but you could use old 3.0 stuff until the 3.5 version came out. 4e wasn't at all compatible with 3e.
So, yeah, most rev rolls ended up curtailing the usefulness of old stuff. The one glaring exception, though was 3.5 -> 4e, because of the OGL. 4e abandonned 3.5, but the fans didn't, and Pathfinder stepped in using the OGL to provide ongoing support to 3.5, allowing it's fans to keep their momentum (and their hatred of 4e) going. Post-Essentials, fans of 4e will not have that option, as the current gaming liscence is too restrictive for a 4e immitator to come out as an alternative to Essentials. So the Essentials direction is co-opting 4e, and threatening to render o4e untennable over time, it doesn't need to make the old books go away to do that, though the older stuff is being aggressively errata'd.
Check out this thread:
community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/758...
Even actual 'haters' have tried or are incorporating Essentials+ - such is the power of 'new material' in our hobby.
Love 4e? Concerned about its future? Join the Old Guard of 4e"You want The Tooth? You can't handle The Tooth!" - Dahlver-Nar. "If magic is unrestrained in the campaign, D&D quickly degenerates into a weird wizard show where players get bored quickly" - E. Gary Gygax
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jun 26, 2011 - 12:16PM
#460
|
|
|
Do you have any stats to back you up on your claim that LFR hasn't suffered because of Essentials?
How is it strictly LFR's fault?
To get both sides of this: Can you prove that LFR hasn't suffered because of changes in how LFR is handled?
Think about, realize you can't - you cannot, with definitive proof prove that Essentials ruined LFR more than LFR ruined itself.
LFR was ruined by changing hands/managment several times in succession, while the release of new adventures slowed to almost nothing. The current management is stable, but I think they're in over their heads and making some decisions I don't agree with.
...whatever
|
|
|
