Community

Oct 14, 2012 -- 7:29AM, SwampDog wrote:

Oct 13, 2012 -- 6:35PM, Style75 wrote:

Oct 13, 2012 -- 2:55PM, Xguild wrote:

[ in fact, I would say that most of the poeple on the 4th edition forums aren't D&D fans at all.. They love 4th edition, not D&D, its a distincition with a big difference.  How can you be a fan of D&D if you don't like the first 30 years of its existance and think the latest incarnation of it that has little to no resemblence to its roots is somehow D&D.  That's like saying Spaceballs was a sequal to Star Wars... its a silly notion and anyone who counts himself a fan knows better.  What has been released in 5th edition so far is more D&D than 4th edition has ever even hoped to be let alone acomplished.

What a load of garbage. I've been playing D&D for well over 30 years and enjoyed ALL editions of the game and I know a large number of people who would say the same thing, including many of the 4e fans on these forums. To say that fans of 4e are not fans of D&D is just a garbage statement. Please take your hate somewhere else.

I agree with Style75.   I've also been playing D&D since the 70s and I think that 4e is the best version of the game.   It is most certainly D&D.   And this notion that Paizo = D&D "alive and well" is also garbage.   If it doesn't say D&D on the box, it's NOT D&D.

     An attitude beloved by lawyers, but not by consumers.  We routinely, and correctly, say the name may be the same, but the product isn't.  WOTC bragged about all the 'sacred cows' it had slaughtered and we can take them at their word.  4e is just vastly different from 3.5 and every other D&D version.  To call it D&D is to say that almost every competitor of D&D was D&D.  Pathfinder is much more 'D&D' than 4e.
    That does not mean D&D is bad, or good.  It is just different from 4e.  I enjoyed 1e, 2e, 3e, and 3.5, each of which I dumped with varying degrees of joy or reluctance and would never think of playing if the new version was available.  They were fine for their time, but we have better now.

     

Oct 14, 2012 -- 3:50PM, DavidArgall wrote:

  The very success of Pathfinder shows us that a huge number of people consider it, not 4e, to be the true D&D. 

I've highlighted my problem with your statement.  Why does their have to be one true D&D? In the last 6 months I've played every edition of the game, including Pathfinder (which I agree is D&D btw, seeing as how it is 90% 3.5e), and had fun with every one. I don't subscribe to the belief that only the latest and greatest version is the true version and I'm sure that even after I'm enjoying 5e I'll still believe that 1e through 4e and PF are also D&D.

Oct 14, 2012 -- 3:50PM, DavidArgall wrote:

Oct 14, 2012 -- 2:27PM, crzyhawk wrote:

Just because it's beloved by lawyers and not consumers does not somehow make the statement wrong.

    Depends on the audience we are talking to.  And we are talking to consumers, not lawyers.  The very success of Pathfinder shows us that a huge number of people consider it, not 4e, to be the true D&D.  It got the vast majority of its customers from being almost a copy of 3.5, while 4e was talking about how new and inproved it was [which it was, but a lot of people thought differently about the improved part].

Actually, the fact that the Mass Effect Trilogy was far more successful than either Pathfinder or 4E shows that Mass Effect is the true D&D.

Although I have to face that the Avengers movie was probably more successful than Mass Effect, so that might really be the true D&D.  Or it could be Nolen's Batman Trilogy... do we get to count the entire Trilogy when determing success in order to figure out what the true D&D is?