Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 7526118" data-attributes="member: 42582">4e works very well as an RPG, with one major exception and one other point of complexity.Major exception: the scaling for combat numbers is different from the scaling for out-of-combat number (roughly +1 per level vs +0.7 per level). At heroic tier this can mostly be ignored, but as levels grow its effect on the maths becomes more evident. It means that you can't have truly universal resolution (eg Intimidate vs Will, Acrobatics vs Reflect, to-hit vs a skill challenge DDC, etc) without the maths breaking down. Fixing this would require reworking the maths of one or both systems, which would be hard, so it's something that I fudge over in play. Point of complexity: 4e combat resolution is very concrete (mapped terrain, detalied position tracking, etc). But 4e non-combat is very abstract (skill challenges). This can cause ajdudicative challenges at the point of interface. As I think [MENTION=82504]Garthanos[/MENTION] has noted in this thread, it also puts some hard limits on the gonzo eg epic fighters can't easily leap to the moon, because their exploits also have to fit on a battle map tracked in 5' squares.So anyway, to say that "4e didn't work" is simply to say that it was not as commercially successful as WotC hoped. That's not primarily an inquiry into RPG design but into (i) RPG marketing and (ii) what is popular in RPGing.I have my own views on why 4e was not popular, informed mostly by what I read on the interwebs. (1) Many RPGers don't like closed scene resolution and other forms of abstraction, other than hit points as a weird exception. (2) Many RPGers treat resource management and related puzzle solving as the main focus of play, whereas 4e tends to subordinate this in certain respects. (3) Many RPGers prefer much tighter GM control of outcomes than 4e defaults to.</blockquote>

Verification