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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="innerdude" data-source="post: 6577101" data-attributes="member: 85870">Actually, it's both poll responses taken together. The key phrase in poll answer # 1 is expectations. If you were expecting 4e to be a fairly "traditional" take on D&D and its historical roots, then there was likely nothing that was ever going to get you to really give it a fair shake. If you had no existing expectations, or were willing to to take 4e "as is" and play to its strengths, then it would be successful at what it did.But that said, even if you fell into the 2nd camp (no preconceptions / expectations, a willingness to take 4e on its own merits), I've said it before and I'll say it again, the INITIAL RELEASE of the "Core 3" books + Keep on the Shadowfell did absolutely nothing to dispel the early rumblings from detractors that something just "wasn't quite right" with the play experience the majority of groups seemed to be having. Throw in a talented GM like @<a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=42582" target="_blank">pemerton</a>, @<a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=6696971" target="_blank">Manbearcat</a>, etc. and suddenly 4e can be drifted into something unique. But the core release materials did nothing to point players toward that outcome. So ultimately it was both---unmet expectations, plus an inability of the core materials to point groups to the real "core" playstyle that 4e worked best for----drifted light Narrativism within high-concept scene framing married to tactical gamism.And if you didn't like that playstyle to begin with, 4e wasn't particularly built to support much else.</blockquote>

Verification