Sure, but is accessibility the only measure by which the quality of a game should be considered? I, for one, prefer a game with some crunch to it. Not Rolemaster or 3.5e levels, but a bit more than 5e.
Sorry, but here you are re-framing what happened as a mere result of misinformation after the many, many attempts people made to let 4e fans understand that many 4e elements were subjectively bad for some of the customer base.
Oh, yeah. It's way easier to run M&M than play. You don't have to worry about the math, just the power level and the trade-offs. You can give the villains literally any powers you want with any amount of points.
I'm honestly surprised they haven't converted it over to AGE. But it makes sense. It was their flagship game for years. But with 3E and Ray Winninger's help they molded it to as close to the old DC Heroes game as they could. They're probably quite happy with it or don't see it giving them enough profit to justify an edition change and revision.
Most people seem to want a collaborative storytelling experience these days. Why is there any math at all? You can achieve the same effect simpler. Something like dis/advantage, depending on the dice used, usually lands smack dab in the center of the typical bonus range. Roll and match systems like Outgunned or Broken Compass. Drawing cards. Spending from a resource pool. Etc. There's nothing inherent to lots of math that makes it a better resolution mechanic than anything else.
Of course not. But it is incredibly important for some people.
Depends on the referee's familiarity with the genre of the game. If it's a superhero game and the adult referee is a life-long superhero fan...I'd trust them to adjudicate things better than most game systems. It also depends on the goals and focus of the game. Again, familiarity with those is important, not familiarity with the fiddly mechanics of the game. People play games without much more than a vague idea of the rules every day just fine. That you don't like light systems does not mean they are not beginner friendly. As covered in the "essential mechanics" thread, all you need is a way to resolve disagreements over what should happen next in the fiction. That's it. That can fit on a post it note. You don't need 1000+ pages of rules.
People have diverse experiences. What I remember is quite different indeed, and is reflected in this thread. There is one specific way to play and 4e is perfect for that, different experiences dismissed, the math works (false), the game will be the same (false), element X of 3ed must be removed, element Y none cares about. This is why BTW I pointed out at those preview books up thread: the tone of those books contributed to this climate. The result was that whose in doubt were doubly turned off.
"Everyone is a spellcaster" is reductionist, but you know well what people meant (dislike - which I don't share - for daily powers). The warlord can be perceived like that because many consider HPs at least partially meat points, albeit never completely. Better to not go on the financial part seeing how the thread disclosing actual facts went. Fireballs were de facto square. When people looked at tieflings thought about color-swapped draenei, especially alongside bloodelf-esque high elves - and together with the AEDU "different cooldowns", guess what happened. I mean people that were not active online pointed that out to me.
I take the precise opposite lesson; the Fighter concept itself is the poisoned well, so leaving it in will inevitably cause problems, but you can avoid much of that baggage by simply not having it.
They meant exactly what they said. Especially because they would say it. Over and over and over and over. Folks particularly loved the "Fighters shooting lightning bolts out of their arses" format, even though that literally isn't a thing.
It really can't. Especially since even for people who see HP as meat points (a ridiculous notion, but it persists nonetheless), HP never actually cause permanent wounds or maiming. It's inherently disingenuous from the start, much like "dissociated mechanics."
I mean, it objectively sold well initially, and the argument is that it got trashed by folks who hated it for various reasons (often, though not exclusively, without having ever read the text itself. I would know. I was originally a hater, who had been taught to hate it without reading it by other people I once trusted...who also hated it without reading it.)
"Square" and "circle" are identical shapes on a chessboard. (And, likewise, sphere, cylinder, and cube are all identical figures.) That doesn't make the physical object a cube. It's a rules simplification to make life easier, because at distances of 50-60 feet, it's literally only an extra like 5% area due to the alternating 2-1-2-1 method's approximation.
Aaaand guess what, you're doing it too! AEDU isn't cooldowns. It isn't even remotely like cooldowns. It's a lazy comparison that reflects a poor understanding of both games.
Having "inexact opinions" is one thing. Loudly and proudly shouting them, over and over and over and over, is active misinformation. And yes, it absolutely was maliciously conceived to help make 4e fail. That's what the haters wanted. And they won. They ensured that it did. Of course, WotC was practically an accomplice on that front, and the hand 4e got dealt was about as bad as it could be. But active, intentional misinformation campaigning from haters was a major component.
They meant that they didn't want dailies. Now one could argue "what about rage or certain PrCs with X/day powers inm 3e" which is a very valid counter-argument (which I use, I am totally ok with daily!). HP deserves its own thread, but many, me included, maintain that due to the way things interact in-universe, poisons, and other mechanics, there is a minimum of meat points each time. For me it goes beyond quite frankly, is the sameness that got me (no, not the powers, I know Clerics and Warlords powers are not the same), while for me a good Warlord class would function more on avoidance, temporary HP and so forth. But I don't use 4e mechanics.
