Search results

no, quite the opposite even the post you referred to does not support your claim of relevant differences, but does the opposite

without 2e that would have happened much sooner, you statement for 2e -> 3e applies here as well I agree with this part 3e to 3.5 was not a success, 3.5 followed the same trajectory as 3e and the editions before it. If 3.5 was a success then so was 2e and 3e you are ignoring 4e Essentials...

that was basically guaranteed given the continued growth of 5e. If they had not managed that, it would have been a disaster, so I do not take that as an indication of anything. It will take 2-3 years at least before we can say anything, the only thing that is clear so far is that it was not a...

it contributed, I don't think it was the only criteria agreed, guess 4e drove that lesson home, finally

I agree that needing a new version is not where you want to be as a publisher, I am not sure we can call creating these new editions at the time a mistake however. The sales were unsustainably low, so they had to do something and a new edition was the surest way to rekindle interest. It clearly...

they certainly were not the main drivers for new editions. I see it the reverse way, needing a new edition was the reason why they could be / had to be more creative, without that need we get something a lot more like 2024

all good, just clarifying it since there are different threads going on in parallel

not sure I agree with this, that is the problem with sandbox being vaguely defined. It is designed to utilize more player input / is more narrative, that I would agree on I have no idea where you keep getting this ‘universally better’ from. You keep bringing it up when no one is saying it. I...

true that would be more akin to being upset about a feat or spell, not a whole class

I am not saying it is widely criticized, just that it got more mixed results none of which have anything to do with the playtest. I agree that it mostly gets praise for the stuff WotC never asked for feedback on…

maybe, but the amount of system people want is different, so a system that goes beyond that for the sake of ‘more sandboxiness’ will not be better for everyone, not even a better sandbox

which is not what I was arguing for…

the DMG and MM are generally seen as improvements, the PHB gets some mixed results on that. The PHB got a long playtest while the others did not. I have been critical of the playtest approach for a while and I cannot help but wonder if there is a correlation

and they all happened because sales had evaporated

I did not realize this was in doubt

no it did not, you just cut it off too early the factor here is faster and the context is better for sandboxes, not better at everything. How would that even work, faster at sandboxes obviously does not make you better at everything, heck, as you may have noticed people do not even agree that...

at sandboxes, not inherently, just like the post you were replying to

are you sure about that?

the jury on that is very much still out, and I do not see the playtest as having made much of a difference with respect to improving the game either, the approach is too muddled to be much better than a coin toss. The one thing it does is identify hugely unpopular options, in case any were...

you have a very different take of the playtest than me, I do not see it as having helped the game improve