Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="James Gasik" data-source="post: 9234473" data-attributes="member: 6877472">Having engaged in many debates about 4e, it tends to comes down to this:  other forms of D&D are just as much games as 4e, but maintain a veneer of plausibility when discussing the game and why it's rules are just so, perhaps even citing "realism" (while simultaneously scoffing at the concept in other parts of the system).4e committed the sin of saying "hey, wait, it really is just a game, right?  So let's present it thusly, and not worry about whether or not anything conforms to reality!".  This, along with the creation of the universe, has generally been held to be a bad idea by many.Because not only is 4e completely admitting it's a game, for those who enjoy a grittier playstyle with a heavier emphasis on verisimilitude (a word I didn't even know until WotC brought it up themselves!), 4e seems to be actively thumbing it's nose at such playstyles!**and some of the marketing and developer comments straight out thumb their noses at such concepts.So once you're disinclined to like a thing in the first place, it becomes trivial to find some aspect of the system to latch onto and make that the hill you die on, be it turning everything that isn't a worthwhile combat into skill checks, plentiful out of combat healing that doesn't require magic, no vancian casting, non-casters being able to do anything that previous editions require magic to do, matter-of-fact rules elements that basically say "this does this, and it really doesn't care about corner cases", classes being funneled into a single role, or whatever sacred cow you hold near and dear to your vision of what D&D is.It's worth noting that this sort of debate is not unique to 4e and surrounds every version of the game (just look at threads on this forum now about how the game should be changed to suit this play style or that).  The only real difference is, the plug was pulled on 4e early, so it's detractors took that as evidence that they were right, the same way people who defend 5e are quick to point out how popular it is and how much money it makes.That what happened to 4e may be a lot more complex* than "it failed" doesn't really matter to some people. To them, they won, 4e lost, 4e fans should just admit they were wrong.*a quick look at any corporation will show that some really pants on head decisions are often made to hamstring their own success.  Time Splitters 4 cancelled because "they couldn't decide on the box art"?  New Coke?  Kmart deciding they can directly compete with Wal-Mart?  Bethesda deciding they can release games in half-finished states because "the modding community will fix it for us" (and then getting totally owned when modders turned up their noses at Starfield)?  Completing filming of a movie and not even releasing it, despite the fact if it flops, you can recoup the costs from insurance and write it off in your taxes?  Getting fooled into re-releasing a flop because of online buzz ("It's Morbin' time!").  Tanking your own blockbuster movie which is intended to start a franchise because you refuse to commit to decent marketing ("John Carter" comes to mind), et. al.</blockquote>

Verification