TheRavyn wrote:Actually, unless I missed something I don't recall seeing a comments section when I filled it out. I had to check 4e since we're playing it, so maybe you don't get a space to comment in that case? So the result of my survey probably doesn't convey any huge issue with 4e, though checking 1e, 2e, 3.x, and 4e probably marks me as odd.
Far from discounting anyone's opinion, I was inquiring as to why anyone would bother expressing that opinion to WotC, who are obviously firmly committed to 4E. As Snore and Dav mentioned, they are expressing their dislike in the hopes that an eventual 5E will be more traditional D&D, which is the kind of thing I was looking for, and I'm glad they took the time to respond in a thoughtful manner.
The big issue for me is not 4e in itself. The problem for me is that the "opportunity cost" of playing 4e is not playing the 3.x campaign that is more suited to how I want to play. Now I have two groups. If the first one stayed playing 3.x (or Pathfinder) and the second played 4e, you would probably would never see much of a peep from me regarding 4e. Unfortunately, my first group is playing 4e under the current DM rotation (2nd straight 4e rotation) and the second group is playing soul-suckingly awful 2e (and Ravyn knows exacly what I'm talking about) and the occasional OSRIC mod that I run old school 1e-style. I'm still plotting on converting them to C&C, but I've been strapped for time and know that I would have to be DM most of the time if I can pull this off.
