Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="BryonD" data-source="post: 6361557" data-attributes="member: 957">Strongly agreeClearly true As they say, hindsight *is* 20/20.Though I must agree that specifying the &quot;radical departure&quot; point does selectively frame the debate.&nbsp; One could easily call 3E a &quot;radical departure&quot; from prior editions.&nbsp; The devil is in the details.&nbsp; If it had been a radical departure, but overwhelmingly loved by the fan base, then the commercial problems would have, obviously, been avoided and the &quot;departure&quot; would be a non-issue.&nbsp; This deeply misses several points.One, 4E *clearly* had a devoted fan base.&nbsp; One of 5E's stated goals is appealing to all prior editions.&nbsp; Thus the idea that nods to 4E are present is beyond obvious.&nbsp; So retaining elements of 4E only speaks to that effortTwo, 4E was hard coded.&nbsp; 5E is promoted as being highly hackable.&nbsp; Anything a player doesn't like can be removed an replaced.&nbsp; Three, 4E had a wide range of &quot;departures&quot;.&nbsp; Any of these departures could, and did, motivate people to turn away.&nbsp; 4E healing was a big deal.&nbsp; But there are plenty of people with no issue with that, but still didn't like some other departure.&nbsp; You can't asses the degree of departure and its impact without looking at it cumulatively.Four, if your logic holds on a case by case basis, then all we need to show is one thing they DID change back (Great Wheel) to &quot;prove&quot; you wrong.&nbsp; I don't agree with this logic.&nbsp; But it follows from your reasoning.You seem to be mixing and matching what we can and can't know.&nbsp; We won't know the fine, firmly quantified numbers for who does and does not like 5E by RAW, or who like 5E with *this* or *that* element house-ruled into oblivion any more than we know the firmly quantified numbers for the 4E market.&nbsp; I don't think the absence of edition warring is a mark of success.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="BryonD, post: 6361557, member: 957"] Strongly agree Clearly true As they say, hindsight *is* 20/20. Though I must agree that specifying the "radical departure" point does selectively frame the debate. One could easily call 3E a "radical departure" from prior editions. The devil is in the details. If it had been a radical departure, but overwhelmingly loved by the fan base, then the commercial problems would have, obviously, been avoided and the "departure" would be a non-issue. This deeply misses several points. One, 4E *clearly* had a devoted fan base. One of 5E's stated goals is appealing to all prior editions. Thus the idea that nods to 4E are present is beyond obvious. So retaining elements of 4E only speaks to that effort Two, 4E was hard coded. 5E is promoted as being highly hackable. Anything a player doesn't like can be removed an replaced. Three, 4E had a wide range of "departures". Any of these departures could, and did, motivate people to turn away. 4E healing was a big deal. But there are plenty of people with no issue with that, but still didn't like some other departure. You can't asses the degree of departure and its impact without looking at it cumulatively. Four, if your logic holds on a case by case basis, then all we need to show is one thing they DID change back (Great Wheel) to "prove" you wrong. I don't agree with this logic. But it follows from your reasoning. You seem to be mixing and matching what we can and can't know. We won't know the fine, firmly quantified numbers for who does and does not like 5E by RAW, or who like 5E with *this* or *that* element house-ruled into oblivion any more than we know the firmly quantified numbers for the 4E market. I don't think the absence of edition warring is a mark of success. [/QUOTE]

Verification