NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Snarf Zagyg" data-source="post: 9100792" data-attributes="member: 7023840">In fairness, the OP was explicitly about a recent presentation by a historian.The historian has (apparently) uncovered some new information, and confirmed a great deal of older information, about 4e. A large part of this goes directly to issues that have discussed for some time. These include-1. That 4e had disappointing sales, both in terms of the expectations of management and in terms of 3e. 2. That 4e had issues during the design process, at least partly due to competing factions within the company.3. The design of 4e was heavily influenced by the perception of WoW, likely including design decisions, desire for recurring licensing revenue, and the issues that surrounded the OGL. 4. That people (both internally, and externally ... Paizo ...) quickly realized that 4e would prove to be divisive to segments of the core audience of D&D during the design process.Obviously, we will need to see what he publishes, but those are certainly interesting claims. The fact that people wish to rehash the same old debates about the merits of 4e qua 4e are unsurprising, but I'm not sure that this thread is the one to complain that the actual issue is that the reason the thread is getting sidetracked is because of people that are expressing their viewpoints that are in accordance with the OP. Again, it might be interesting to discuss the ways in which 4e was marketed incorrectly, or rolled out poorly, but given that we now know that WoTC was well aware during the design process (as was Paizo) that 4e would be divisive, I certainly think it is strange that we continue to see people say that the real issue with 4e is that people simply didn't understand it. People can understand something, and even appreciate parts of it, while still finding that it doesn't work for them.</blockquote>

Verification