Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Bedrockgames" data-source="post: 8247456" data-attributes="member: 85555"><p>Also the issue isn't that dissociative wasn't hitting on something true. I think there was definitely truth in some of 4Es mechanics being dissociated and that being one of the conrtibuting factors to folks not liking it. But it is about volume and quantity. People too dissociative mechanics to an extreme level and started arguing any amount was a problem if you did't like it 4E. This is tru of most of the mechanics in 4E people didn't like. Here and there, they were mostly fine (especially as edge cases or as exceptions, or as things that didn't leap out). D&amp;D, in my view always skirted the line with believability because it was a very hand wavy and abstract system. Fourth edition just pushed that lack of believability too far for some people (someone who doesn't mind Barbarian rage existing with the Barbarian, can understandably be more bothered by it if every class has that kind of ability). I think it was a combination of this, and the system being so unlike other version of D&amp;D to many people, that they just couldn't get on board (I was in a number of groups and the reaction I saw in my area was about half of the players just flat rejecting the edition: and these were people who happily transitioned from edition to edition prior to that.</p></blockquote><p></p>

[QUOTE="Bedrockgames, post: 8247456, member: 85555"] Also the issue isn't that dissociative wasn't hitting on something true. I think there was definitely truth in some of 4Es mechanics being dissociated and that being one of the conrtibuting factors to folks not liking it. But it is about volume and quantity. People too dissociative mechanics to an extreme level and started arguing any amount was a problem if you did't like it 4E. This is tru of most of the mechanics in 4E people didn't like. Here and there, they were mostly fine (especially as edge cases or as exceptions, or as things that didn't leap out). D&D, in my view always skirted the line with believability because it was a very hand wavy and abstract system. Fourth edition just pushed that lack of believability too far for some people (someone who doesn't mind Barbarian rage existing with the Barbarian, can understandably be more bothered by it if every class has that kind of ability). I think it was a combination of this, and the system being so unlike other version of D&D to many people, that they just couldn't get on board (I was in a number of groups and the reaction I saw in my area was about half of the players just flat rejecting the edition: and these were people who happily transitioned from edition to edition prior to that. [/QUOTE]

Verification