What constitutes a "large segment"? A majority? Or, do you have a number in mind? Do you know how many people did embrace it, to know the segment that did take it on was "not large"?
Let's not get lost in semantics here, Umbran. A lot of your response to me seems to be protesting my word usage, and to be honest I just don't have the energy or interest for an endless back and forth of proper word usage. I'm just not enough of a word fetishist to be too particular with what I say, at least on a hobbyist message board! The point being, let's look to the spirit and not the letter of the law (and words).
With that in mind, I will try to clarify what I mean as best I can. To start, what I mean by "large segment" is "large enough for WotC to start working on a new edition just a few years into the edition cycle, with no new material published after around four years." That to me is significant. I don't have a particular number in mind, but evidently WotC did - and it was large enough for what happened to happen. So if you want more specific, accurate language, change "large segment" to "large enough segment for WotC to deem it worth continuing beyond a few years."
This sort of thing is actually a contributing factor in edition warring. Use of vague language that will mean different things to different people, and thoroughly unsupportable by real data. We don't have hard data. We should not speak as if we do.
It is only "a contributing factor in edition warring" if people confuse talk of an edition's popularity with an edition's value or worth. The real factor in this regard is the knee-jerk reactionism that often accompanies such confusion. To be clear: An edition's popular does not inherently have anything to do with its worth or value or quality as a game, and vice versa. So this really shouldn't be an issue, unless the person reacting is so concerned with how popular their favored edition is.
Let me be clear again: it is *not* a negative criticism of an edition to say "It isn't as popular or widely embraced as the publisher hoped it would be." That is *not* edition warring. What
might be more of a contributing factor is misconstruing that sort of statement as an attack on said edition. In other words, the contributing factor in edition warring has more to do with the way such statements are interpreted, not intended.
Is this information for which you have a citation, or are you assuming you know the reasons?
We know that a lot of people didn't like 4e. We know that WotC chose to create a new game. But, as they say, correlation does not imply causation. While, if you were forced to bet, this would probably not be the worse bet you could make, it still remains that there could have been other reasons for the change.
Sure, fine, there are always any number of possibilities. But I'm going on what I've seen said time and time again, by Mearls and others, as well as simple inference from the fact that 4E was effectively dead in the water after four years, and that last year was probably really just pushing out stuff that was already finished. That speaks for itself, doesn't it?
Again, I'm not bagging on 4E - just pointing out the obvious. Four years to an edition cycle does not speak to a thriving, beloved edition (and it was really only three years of active expansion, with that fourth year being "pushing another year out").
I say this for a very simple reason - more important than, "How many people have embraced 4e?" is, "How much more can we do with 4e?" Combine this with the change in strategy with regards to the brand. Was 4e really a good platform upon which to base expansion into other media? 4e was a carefully crafted and balanced game - in that sense, it was perhaps the best constructed game the hobby has ever seen. But the problem with that tight construction, and the expectations that construction brings, is that it is, compared to other approaches, inflexible. That, more than how many folks had picked it up, may well have spelled its demise.
Your version of events is plausible. But so is mine. So, which one is right? You believe yours is. But do you know it, in the verifiable fact, sense? If not, why do you speak as if it is a verifiable fact, instead of a compelling interpretation of data?
Yes, I agree with some of what you say here, but it just seems like you are ignoring too much, such as the state and morale of the community. But it is a valid, interesting point you make - and I agree that there was a certain genius to the 4E design.
As for needing to verify everything one says as fact, come on Umbran - this is a message board, not the presentation of a dissertation! Also, I think you are interpreting my stand as "speaking as if it is a verifiable fact" rather than a "compelling interpretation of data" - that is
your interpretation, not my intention. To be honest, as someone with strong Buddhist inclinations, just about all of my beliefs and perspectives are no more or less than a "compelling interpretation of data," for what its worth! I don't take anything I think or say as "verifiable fact."
And, here you have just missed a major point of going with an open license for 5e. If they have an open license, nobody has to wait for WotC to come out with more detailed modular options. Those could be built by 3rd parties!
??? This is just truly odd. Did I miss a major point simply because I didn't mention such a thing? I agree with you, but am not sure why you'd think otherwise? Or do you just want to find something to disagree with me about?
