Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="James Gasik" data-source="post: 9324070" data-attributes="member: 6877472">Why, do you feel called out?&nbsp; Because I can assure you, some of those things were things I said when I first read the 4e PHB.&nbsp; The game changed.&nbsp; Whether or not those changes were good or bad is entirely a matter of perspective, but they were changes in the entire philosophy of D&amp;D at that point, it was a total paradigm shift.&nbsp; Up til very late 3.5, D&amp;D was a daily resource based attrition system.The 3.5 designers noted that a lot of problems people had could be better solved by making it more of an encounter-based attrition system, though they kept some daily abilities.&nbsp; They noted low-level blues, they noted &quot;not feeling like a member of your class&quot; for several levels.&nbsp; And the more they changed, the more they felt like they could improve and tweak.&nbsp; Less attacks during combat, more base damage.&nbsp; Let's not worry about diagonal movement.&nbsp; Let's fully embrace the grid.So on, and so forth.&nbsp; What they forgot was, while many things they changed were unpopular, they were also a huge part of D&amp;D's identity.&nbsp; If their target audience was people who never played D&amp;D before, or who felt that D&amp;D was old and busted and hard to get into, smashing success.But if their target was the people who liked their D&amp;D-isms and were used to a certain kind of play and certain expectations about the game, it was a failure.&nbsp; They were bold.&nbsp; They picked a lane.&nbsp; They said &quot;Did you like the Book of Nine Swords?&nbsp; We think this is the future of D&amp;D, come along for the ride.&quot;And like Rorschach, a good amount of D&amp;D fans looked at it and said &quot;no&quot;.&nbsp; You can take umbrage with my examples, but I feel they are more concrete than &quot;too video-gamey&quot; &quot;too much like an MMO&quot; or &quot;too anime&quot; or whatever blithe dismissal of the product some might adhere to.These are some of the real reasons in my opinion.&nbsp; It was too different.&nbsp; And no amount of &quot;but see, this is better!&quot; will change that abject fact.5e's success, in part, shows that there are some things people didn't want changed about Dungeons &amp; Dragons.&nbsp; Not just from the 4e era, but the 3e era as well.EDIT: changed &quot;you&quot; to &quot;some&quot; in the line &quot;you adhere to&quot;.&nbsp; I have a habit of using the generic &quot;you&quot; when I should more properly say &quot;one&quot;, &quot;a given person&quot; and so on.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="James Gasik, post: 9324070, member: 6877472"] Why, do you feel called out? Because I can assure you, some of those things were things [B]I[/B] said when I first read the 4e PHB. The game changed. Whether or not those changes were good or bad is entirely a matter of perspective, but they were changes in the entire philosophy of D&D at that point, it was a total paradigm shift. Up til very late 3.5, D&D was a daily resource based attrition system. The 3.5 designers noted that a lot of problems people had could be better solved by making it more of an encounter-based attrition system, though they kept some daily abilities. They noted low-level blues, they noted "not feeling like a member of your class" for several levels. And the more they changed, the more they felt like they could improve and tweak. Less attacks during combat, more base damage. Let's not worry about diagonal movement. Let's fully embrace the grid. So on, and so forth. What they forgot was, while many things they changed were unpopular, they were also a huge part of D&D's identity. If their target audience was people who never played D&D before, or who felt that D&D was old and busted and hard to get into, smashing success. But if their target was the people who liked their D&D-isms and were used to a certain kind of play and certain expectations about the game, it was a failure. They were bold. They picked a lane. They said "Did you like the Book of Nine Swords? We think this is the future of D&D, come along for the ride." And like Rorschach, a good amount of D&D fans looked at it and said "no". You can take umbrage with my examples, but I feel they are more concrete than "too video-gamey" "too much like an MMO" or "too anime" or whatever blithe dismissal of the product some might adhere to. These are some of the real reasons in my opinion. It was too different. And no amount of "but see, this is better!" will change that abject fact. 5e's success, in part, shows that there are some things people didn't want changed about Dungeons & Dragons. Not just from the 4e era, but the 3e era as well. EDIT: changed "you" to "some" in the line "you adhere to". I have a habit of using the generic "you" when I should more properly say "one", "a given person" and so on. [/QUOTE]

Verification