Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Sadras" data-source="post: 6578570" data-attributes="member: 6688277">I have always said that. However given your acceptance of the evolutionary process which occurred with the design of 4e due to (perceived) problems areas in 3e, do you not think 5e is therefore naturally evolved due to (perceived) problems with 4e? It does seem you excuse the one, but not the other based on your own biases for the system you prefer.  This implies that the people who designed the system did not 'grok' it, yet they expected the playerbase to 'grok' it. So they designed a system with more mileage than they actually knew? It sounds like you knew more about 4e than the designers. So WoTC were right to design 4e.They designed a good system with many strengths.They didn't understand those strengths.You understood those strengths.Essentials was designed by those who didn't get 4e.Even though you were not aware of all the going-on's in the company, you believe going ahead with 5e was premature. Earlier you wrote its wrong to blame WoTC for fracturing the community with 4e, but according to you its right to blame them for the premature design of 5e.Ok. <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/erm.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":erm:" title="Erm    :erm:" data-shortname=":erm:" />And yet you can read how many gamers thought the system was too codified, too closed for their style of play. Just because you don't want to accept it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. What do you think Chris Perkins was describing here when he was discussing 5e “A great deal of my time and effort was spent to inject the fun that had been sucked out of D&D." Do you think he too didn't realise the potential, mileage or 'grok' the strengths of 4e?Do not get me wrong, I'm not knocking 4e there are plenty aspects of it I like. I think they could have done away with the bajillion powers and instead focused on page 42 of the DMG but included it in the PHB and provided examples. But in saying that they could have improved 4e in a particular direction that was closer to its base instead of going 5e - the same can be said for 3e and 2e.  Agreed, 4e can be customised but its start base was very different to the other iterations of the game, and for some playstyles it required more effort than it was worth leading to the fracture in the playerbase (not saying it was the only reason).    How about Musical Instruments?  But you did?  Another way of putting it is, the designers simply didn't see the weaknesses of 4e right off. Proficiency in Tap dancing is not nearly as important as Proficiency in Musical Instruments <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue    :p"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" /> Despite all the grief I have given you, I agree with this statement, BUT I feel the same way about 2e and 3.5eI'm not convinced "4.5" would have been the right move for WoTC.  This might sound familiar, but I think it applies...</blockquote>

Verification