On Monday, August 1, 2022 at 8:41:56 AM UTC-7, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
On Mon, 1 Aug 2022 07:14:15 -0700 (PDT), Justisaur
<just...@gmail.com> wrote:
BFP took quite a hit, as they were at 11 vs. 5 now. 3.5
ealso had 13 and is now down to 1.
As to AD&D 1e is gone now, where there were 2 or 3
games before. Oe took a hit as it was between 3-5
(counting a couple clones) and is now only 2 if you
include Black Hack. 2e went up in popularity a lot,
being previously 2 games. LotFP is gone, there was
one game previously. DCC gained 1 game.
No 4th Ed D&D at all? Wow... gamers really dropped that version
quickly. I thought the outrage over how disliked it was disliked was
the Internet being its usual self (mind you, I wasn't fond of the
system either, but I'm peculiar ;-) , but seeing it so quickly
abandoned makes me think that maybe it really /was/ that hated.
I wasn't quite so interested in the non-OSR stuff, so didn't report
how many of each of those there were, but I went back and
double checked, absolutely no 4th edition games. Well, o.k.
there was one, 4th edition of Champions :)
There was one 13th Age game, which was based off of 4e.
From what I've read of it, it's not really very 4e though and probably >further from 4e than most OSR games are from 3e/5e.
4th Edition D&D: the "Windows Vista" of the pen-n-paper role-playing
world. Irrationally hated by most users even though it included most
of what people had been asking for in a new version at that point, and
many of its features continued to persist in the rebranded successor
that was beloved largely because it wasn't Vista/4E.
Which isn't to say either product was faultless or up to the standards
and expectations of their predecessors/sequels... but the dislike both products garnered seemed out of proportion to its problems. Had D&D
4th Ed been released as "Bob's Fantasy Role-playing Game" it probably
would have been much better received.
I mean, I didn't like 4th Ed either, but I /know/ my dislike is
irrational and I didn't hold that against 4th Edition in particular. I
just like don't like ANY modern rules systems ;-)
Ditto there. There was a lot to like in 4e, but unfortunately they retained
a lot I didn't like that IMHO were bad changes even from 3e. IMHO
4e was objectively bad as it took hours to resolve fights that would've
taken 30 minutes in 3e. It was made as if a computer would be
handling all the addition, subtraction, situational modifiers, and conditions. As that's not the case with a tabletop game it slows the game to a
crawl.
It wasn't D&D either as all the classes were nearly the same in execution
if not effect. I don't think it would've gotten any more traction than any other fly by night if it didn't have the D&D name. And WotC probably
would've stuck with it if not for Pathfinder taking all their customers.
5e has other issues which weren't playtested at all - as I was involved
with the D&D Next playtests, even though they said they were listening
and doing what the fans wanted. It's better, but it's still got major problems. Unfortunately those problems are tied in throughout the system
and aren't easy to address without rewriting the whole thing. It's
at least playable, but I still find it boring as a player as combat takes
far too long.
- Justisaur
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)