Let's talk about "plot", "story", and "play to find out."

[Scott Christian]

I had a lot of fun with 4e. For most of it I played a fighter with Come and Get It, which I thought was a fantastic power both thematically and in actual play. Whenever I used it, I came up with an in-character rationale for why the enemies were briefly drawn to me. I remember once CAGI'ing some dark elves because I had struck their priest, CAGI'ing some monsters I can't remember by playing possum, CAGI'ing some dire wolves by using my primal barbarian (multiclass) instincts to howl a challenge, and CAGI'ing some sword wraiths by unveiling my sword that hates undead and does extra damage to them.

There were also a couple of times where I couldn't think of a fun explanation, so I didn't use the power. But most of the time it was a creative challenge to come up with a satisfying (not forced) explanation and I was able to do it.

As I say, this is often a PICNIC issue (problem in chair not in computer)

I agree with this and with @hawkeyefan.

Ugh having to imagine all those things sounds positively exhausting!!!!

These two can co-exist. I had a lot of fun with 4e. Since I skipped 3.5, and this is what brought me back, it was so much fun. I liked the mechanics, and enjoyed DMing in that system. But there are certain things, as a I look back on, that were not that good. It's the nature of any system.
But what was hinted at earlier, about game's filling niches, and rulesets catering those niches, I find absolutely true. I find it especially true that rulesets are better made when they lean towards that niche. Of course, the largest and biggest RPG is an example of this not being true. But honestly, I think that is what makes it special.

 

[Fenris-77]

Debatable, sure. But I think how far a leap it is depends somewhat on how much the result lines up with your personal preferences.

The only person here who's concerned with personal preferences is you.

 

[Micah Sweet]

The only person here who's concerned with personal preferences is you.

Why are you so insistent on trying to tell me what people other than you think and feel? Can't you just say you aren't concerned with personal preference without having to assume others agree with you?

 

[Scott Christian]

Debatable, sure. But I think how far a leap it is depends somewhat on how much the result lines up with your personal preferences.

I agree.

 

[Fenris-77]

Why are you so insistent on trying to tell me what people other than you think and feel? Can't you just say you aren't concerned with personal preference without having to assume others agree with you?

Because you are only interested in what you think, and that's not interesting or informative. Step outside of that narrow little place and I've got your back.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Because you are only interested in what you think, and that's not interesting or informative. Step outside of that narrow little place and I've got your back.

I'm interested in what other people think, but I want to hear from them, not from other people who have decided to speak on their behalf for some reason.

 

[pemerton]

The only person here who's concerned with personal preferences is you.

My personal preferences shape at least some of what I post (see, eg, references to Burning Wheel and Prince Valiant).

But I try to do more than just express my preferences. To me, posts are interesting when they (i) contain analysis, explanation, etc, or (ii) contain illuminating/interesting actual play examples, or (iii) both.

I've got a reasonable sense of the preferences of most regular posters, and don't really need to keep being reminded, in express terms. of what they are!

 

[Fenris-77]

I'm interested in what other people think, but I want to hear from them, not from other people who have decided to speak on their behalf for some reason.

Keep in mind that we're talking about your goofy hot take on 4E here. If someone agrees that 4E was slanted and exclusionary on purpose to exclude a certain group of gamers I'll laugh at them too. By all means let the agreement come rolling in though, why not.

 

[Fenris-77]

My personal preferences shape at least some of what I post (see, eg, references to Burning Wheel and Prince Valiant).

But I try to do more than just express my preferences. To me, posts are interesting when they (i) contain analysis, explanation, etc, or (ii) contain illuminating/interesting actual play examples, or (iii) both.

I've got a reasonable sense of the preferences of most regular posters, and don't really need to keep being reminded, in express terms. of what they are!

I'm probably being too broad there, let me dial that rhetoric back a little. Obviously we all have preferences and those will inevitably inform our posting, and people's preferences are something that we should be charitable about reading, considering, and taking into account.

None of this make the idea that 4E was written to exclude a certain kind of gamer any less silly however, but I do think I may have used to broad a brush in the general sense.

 

[pemerton]

None of this make the idea that 4E was written to exclude a certain kind of gamer any less silly however, but I do think I may have used to broad a brush in the general sense.

I've always found it weird that people who enjoyed aspects of AD&D/3E D&D but didn't enjoy 4e D&D regard themselves as having been wronged - as if WotC owed them something.

And to flip it around - my relative lack of interest in 5e D&D does not mean that I've been wronged. I just play games I enjoy, and don't play games that I don't enjoy!