Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="TerraDave" data-source="post: 6527284" data-attributes="member: 22260">Are you replying to me?The PHB II seems to have done well compared to other RPG supplements. Thats about it. Again, as noted multiple times above, and in other threads, and at the time (check out the links in my last post) something was obviously perceived as wrong for them to fire who they did or launch essentials. But, on the one hand, on the other hand...My guess is that it took some time to come to the conclusions that you guess they came to. One thing we know Mearls has actually said is how surprised he was that people--through playtest feedback--did not want as much mechanical crunchiness as was assumed by conventional wisdom in the industry. We also actually know that around this time, with the online CB, that they realized that people where playing a lot of "classic" races and classes, inspite of the all the new options rapidly introduced in 4E. It was probably evidence like this, and on new player acquisition, which again Mearls has often mentioned, that led to the shift in thinking, but over time, not all at once.But then again, the splat-o-rama model came from somewhere. Both 3E offshoots followed it quite zealously, and one is still considered to be pretty successful.  Its part of the issue with 4E and the transition to 5E, but not the only thing. There are more columns to re-read.</blockquote>