Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="AlViking" data-source="post: 9789560" data-attributes="member: 6906980">The target audience and consumers of D&amp;D are not static.&nbsp; Some people keep playing, some stop playing, others pick it up.&nbsp; With 5e the number that they retained and gained grew for years on end which broke a pattern that had been established for multiple editions.&nbsp; There are many reasons for that and I don't claim I know what they are, no one does.&nbsp; But one thing is clear - 4e was very &quot;innovative&quot; and the sales sunk to the level that WOTC was considering throwing in the towel.&nbsp; If innovation was always good, even if the old guard abandoned it, the influx of new people would have more than countered it.Legacy players, people who played a previous version, are a small part of the market for D&amp;D.&nbsp; If they &quot;rejected&quot; 4e it's because a lot of people didn't like the game.&nbsp; To be clear 3 and 3.5 don't get a pass here either - they struck out with those versions as well for different reasons. I think 3e was innovative in how it turned around the numbers (something that should have been done long before by TSR) and in trying to be more consistent.&nbsp; Where they fell apart IMHO was that it was too &quot;crunchy&quot; for a lot of people, system mastery made a vast difference in character effectiveness, the game was completely dominated by casters at higher levels.&nbsp; But I guess I shouldn't be surprised that this thread, like what feels like the majority of threads has once more just become yet one more variation of &quot;Let's bash the designers of the most popular TTRPG ever because they don't know what they're doing.&quot;&nbsp; We all have ideas of how the game could be better.&nbsp; Unfortunately almost all of them are different and incompatible.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="AlViking, post: 9789560, member: 6906980"] The target audience and consumers of D&D are not static. Some people keep playing, some stop playing, others pick it up. With 5e the number that they retained and gained grew for years on end which broke a pattern that had been established for multiple editions. There are many reasons for that and I don't claim I know what they are, no one does. But one thing is clear - 4e was very "innovative" and the sales sunk to the level that WOTC was considering throwing in the towel. If innovation was always good, even if the old guard abandoned it, the influx of new people would have more than countered it. Legacy players, people who played a previous version, are a small part of the market for D&D. If they "rejected" 4e it's because a lot of people didn't like the game. To be clear 3 and 3.5 don't get a pass here either - they struck out with those versions as well for different reasons. I think 3e was innovative in how it turned around the numbers (something that should have been done long before by TSR) and in trying to be more consistent. Where they fell apart IMHO was that it was too "crunchy" for a lot of people, system mastery made a vast difference in character effectiveness, the game was completely dominated by casters at higher levels. But I guess I shouldn't be surprised that this thread, like what feels like the majority of threads has once more just become yet one more variation of "Let's bash the designers of the most popular TTRPG ever because they don't know what they're doing." We all have ideas of how the game could be better. Unfortunately almost all of them are different and incompatible. [/QUOTE]

Verification