Edit Page
The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then publish the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision | Your text | ||
Line 53: | Line 53: | ||
WotC did much the same to the D&D brand with 4e; failing to attract many new fans and driving off too many of the old ones (Pathfinder sells well these days, and 3e Forgotten Realms adapts to its rules almost effortlessly). But talking to others who loved the Realms, most of the ill will for 4th edition comes not from the radical rules changes, but from their utter trashing of the FR setting. |
WotC did much the same to the D&D brand with 4e; failing to attract many new fans and driving off too many of the old ones (Pathfinder sells well these days, and 3e Forgotten Realms adapts to its rules almost effortlessly). But talking to others who loved the Realms, most of the ill will for 4th edition comes not from the radical rules changes, but from their utter trashing of the FR setting. |
||
− | With 5e coming, Wizards all but acknowledged that 4th Edition was basically "New Coke", with a reboot to more familiar D&D rules. But unless they do the same with the Realms (as in "Starting with 3/3.5e material, lets just reboot and forget 4e ever happened"), I don't think there will be any salvaging the disaster in the eyes of older fans. |
+ | With 5e coming, Wizards all but acknowledged that 4th Edition was basically "New Coke", with a reboot to more familiar D&D rules. But unless they do the same with the Realms (as in "Starting with 3/3.5e material, lets just reboot and forget 4e ever happened"), I don't think there will be any salvaging the disaster in the eyes of older fans. [[User:Ironlion45|Ironlion45]] ([[User talk:Ironlion45|talk]]) 12:40, August 19, 2012 (UTC) |
− | |[[User:Ironlion45|Ironlion45]] ([[User talk:Ironlion45|talk]]) 12:40, August 19, 2012 (UTC) }} |