Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Aberzanzorax" data-source="post: 5452155" data-attributes="member: 64209">I'll say, speaking for myself, that the terminology of 4e (that Pemerton and ByronD) were discussing on the prior page was one of, if not THE biggest, one of the biggest turnoffs for me. Had they released the exact same system but changed the wording quite a bit, I think that would have "felt" more like D&D to people that don't feel 4e is similar enough to prior editions. Things like "push the target 2 squares" immediately pull me out of the roleplaying feel and put me in the "chess style" feel. I'm not saying you can't roleplayin 4e at all, but I am saying the wording of 4e pulls you out of a roleplaying style just how it was written. I think, had it been written with "push the target 10 feet" (and numerous other examples I don't think we need to hash out) there would have been far fewer arguments about "4e isn't a roleplaying game" and "you can't roleplay in 4e".  But, honestly, I think there are perhaps half a dozen to a dozen things that could have made 4e more popular. It's not a single issue. Many of these reasons have nothing to do with the game itself, either. Several are drawn from poor marketing and poor publicity (like pulling pdfs) and others include the digital tools not being ready at launch (which I think, had they been, would have made 4e more popular as well).</blockquote>