Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="GVDammerung" data-source="post: 3794705" data-attributes="member: 33060">Given the sum total of changes thus far announced for 4e, both crunch and flavor, Wotc is significantly changing a formula that has been very successful to this point.  It seems to me that one does not willy-nilly inaugurate such wide-ranging changes without a very good reason to do so because the change may well be recieved less well in the market than the formula already established as successful.  While Wotc has been reasonably forthcoming in explaining the changes announced to date and why they think those changes are warranted or are cool, they have not explained why the prior, successful formula needed to be so significantly changed.  These are not one and the same thing.  What was wrong with the prior, successful formula?  Sales were flagging?  Interest, RPGA or otherwise, was flagging?  What was so wrong that 4e had to so significantly vary from 3x to set matters right?Rules wise, grappling, is an easy example.  Prep time is an easy example.  But the fluff?  Not so easy.While the fluff might be dismissed as just that, that is too simplistic.  The fuff has served to define the "feel" of the play experience as much as the rules.  That feel will now change, doubly so for changing in terms of both the rules and the fluff.  This is risky.  Id be fascinated to hear what justifoied this level of risk.  So far, I'm hearing "because we say so" with precious little to suggest there was a need and even less to suggest that there are objective reasons to believe the end product will be well received in the marketplace once the newness of the initial 3 core books wears off.Wotc is, IMO, betting the farm.</blockquote>

Verification