Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9572352" data-attributes="member: 6790260">That's fair. I've never had to manage anything, so I don't know what kind of complications arise under such scenarios. But the two people involved here were both leadership and programming, taking two of the best and most important people out of the picture. It's almost certain that things were mismanaged as well. I'm just...I don't see how that specific thing couldn't have made things way, WAY worse than it already was. In the absence of that tragedy, the mismanagement might have been fixed. With it, fixing it was never in the cards.It would be much more apt to say "we won't accept something that actively rejects the principles that went into 4e."Strike!, 13A, PF2e, and probably a couple more I'm unfamiliar with, all managed to preserve that ethos, even while going quite far afield. It is utterly unfair and inaccurate to claim that 4e fans will accept nothing less than a perfect carbon copy.What I won't accept is things quite clearly wearing the flayed skin of 4e like a grotesque pantomime. Need I remind you [USER=6747251]@Micah Sweet[/USER] of the notorious, "<a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20111007150053/http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20110927" target="_blank">...what about what I like to call "passive perception?"</a>" article? (Note: that's an archive.org link, because WotC has scrubbed their website at least twice since this was posted.) WotC has been actively pretending 4e never existed since before D&D Next was called "D&D Next"--as shown here, an article from 2011 that predates the "D&D Next" announcement, which would only come in January 2012.Edit: And, I will note, I was much, much more sympathetic to Monte (and Mearls) at the time than I am now. Because it turned out the people who got Pretty Annoyed about this were entirely justified in doing so, and my "hey, give the man a break, everybody makes mistakes" messaging at the time has ended up looking painfully naïve. Folks want to know why us 4e fans are bitter? We tried not being bitter. It got us ignored, sidelined, insulted, and ultimately excluded from the edition that was supposed to be the "big tent", the edition that initially proposed a rules structure such that one table could play the game OSR-style, another could play it 4e-style, a third could play it 3e-style, and a fourth could mix bits and pieces from each, both in the space of individual character expressions (e.g. the Battle Master moving in a 4e-like direction while, say, the Thief moves in an OSR-like direction, despite being entirely compatible with one another) and in the space of table rules and campaign elements.</blockquote>

Verification