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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Snarf Zagyg" data-source="post: 9216362" data-attributes="member: 7023840">I would go farther. I think that many people misunderstand what "presentation" really means when they say, "Oh, it was just a mistake in presentation." Or, "They shoulda coulda woulda marketed it better."I've previously discussed the origin of the term "Mother May I" and how it was first introduced into RPG discourse by Mike Mearls just prior to joining WoTC- he was, of course, talking about the use of miniatures and how DMs needed to be more constrained. I think that this is germane to the topic; earlier, people mentioned that, for example, 3e was easier to run as a grid-based game than ToTM, which is certainly true. But 3e never demanded that you run it as a grid-based system in the corebooks, even if it was easier (despite this, of course, 3e's new design direction is what led to the rise of OSR).4e's presentation was both its strength and its weaknesses; it was, easily, the edition that had the strongest point of view in terms of saying, "This is how you play." This came out in both the presentation of the rules, as well as the marketing. Arguably, the marketing went overboard on this at times in saying that the "old ways" were silly. The point is, however, that while 3e (for example) made ToTM harder to play, 4e simply announced in the DMG that you were required to use a  grid and miniatures. Period. Could you somehow play 4e without it? Eh, sure. With a lot of work. But the game itself was telling you ... this is what you are going to do.Same with the division of authority. I completely agree that 4e was easier to DM for many people ... because it took a stance in the division of authority, and a strong one at that. The role of the DM was minimized- which was a great thing for a lot of people! Trust the players. Then again, for groups that didn't want to play that way, it didn't offer much.To analogize it to a campaign setting, D&D is normally Forgotten Realms, or Greyhawk. 4e was more akin to Dark Sun- the strength was the point of view, but that same point of view was also a weakness to the extent you weren't on board. When you combine that with a number of other issues (abandoning the OGL, the great recession, issuing a new edition with a lot of new and recurrent expenditures so soon after the glut of 3e material, killing off certain sacred cows, etc. etc. etc.) it just was too much. Any one of those issues might have been enough; combine that with a presentation telling a certain segment of gamers that the way that they play is no longer supported was too much.Which is why it remains divisive; the people that love it will continue to love it because it had such a strong point of view that is matched in its design, and that plays into its strengths. The people that don't like it will continue to not like it because that strong design excluded them from its ambit. Such is life.</blockquote>

Verification