Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 4667856" data-attributes="member: 4937">Back when 4e first began to leak out, and I saw how focused of a game it was going to be I said that the problem here was that WotC had made assumptions about how D&amp;D was played and had been played over the years that just weren't true.&nbsp; WotC had this idea that there was some sort of consensus D&amp;D that almost everyone played, and that people who didn't play it that way were a small fringe group.I don't think the 'wierdos' are really that small of a fringe group.&nbsp; I think when you add up all the D&amp;D tables that were playing horror games, historical recreation games, survival games, steam-punk games, detective games, and so forth that it constituted either a majority of the tables or close to one.&nbsp;&nbsp; Sure, no one style was even close to a plurality, but take all the 'fringe' groups together and it was a big percentage.When I suggested that the new edition wouldn't support 'wierd' styles as well by virtue of being more tightly focused, I was told that people shouldn't have been playing D&amp;D in that fashion anyway because D&amp;D was never perfectly suited to supporting all those wierd styles.&nbsp; But it was never perfectly unsuited either, and over the years DMs had developed ways of coping.&nbsp; Often times it was easier to stay with an established system than move to something which in theory handled your game better, but which in the end would turn out to have rule issues of its own.&nbsp; The bad you knew was better than the bad you didn't, because you were prepared for it.And really, from WotC perspective is, &quot;If you don't like 4e, go play something else?&quot;, really a great selling point?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 4667856, member: 4937"] Back when 4e first began to leak out, and I saw how focused of a game it was going to be I said that the problem here was that WotC had made assumptions about how D&D was played and had been played over the years that just weren't true. WotC had this idea that there was some sort of consensus D&D that almost everyone played, and that people who didn't play it that way were a small fringe group. I don't think the 'wierdos' are really that small of a fringe group. I think when you add up all the D&D tables that were playing horror games, historical recreation games, survival games, steam-punk games, detective games, and so forth that it constituted either a majority of the tables or close to one. Sure, no one style was even close to a plurality, but take all the 'fringe' groups together and it was a big percentage. When I suggested that the new edition wouldn't support 'wierd' styles as well by virtue of being more tightly focused, I was told that people shouldn't have been playing D&D in that fashion anyway because D&D was never perfectly suited to supporting all those wierd styles. But it was never perfectly unsuited either, and over the years DMs had developed ways of coping. Often times it was easier to stay with an established system than move to something which in theory handled your game better, but which in the end would turn out to have rule issues of its own. The bad you knew was better than the bad you didn't, because you were prepared for it. And really, from WotC perspective is, "If you don't like 4e, go play something else?", really a great selling point? [/QUOTE]

Verification