Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9100173" data-attributes="member: 6790260">So, as is basically always the case, cherry-picking data to show failure instead of success. It did succeed. It just didn't succeed as much as it was intended to. It did sell. It just had the worst possible situation anyone could have inflicted upon it besides total economic collapse (an unprecedented massive recession, the collapse of a major book retailer, severe internal problems, literally creating their own biggest rival, etc.)4e was not a failure--unless we define "failure" to mean "not being a smashing, stunning success." Which, I mean, you can define it that way if you want. But that would mean almost every edition of D&D has been a failure. 5e and (IIRC) Basic would be the only ones that meet that standard.Glad to have contributed something then.No. I am saying they ran it according to less than the rules. That's the problem.When GMs are stuck in unfamiliar rules territory, I find that they almost always freeze up. They cease to embrace creative and unexpected proposals. They go with only those things they can be absolutely certain are within the rules.This directly leads to the vast majority of complaints about 4e. That you cannot roleplay--except you can, if you bring creativity and flexibility to the table. That you're only allowed to do things you have powers for and absolutely nothing else--except that that is explicitly not true, the rules directly state that that is not true, and give repeated examples of it being not true. That anything not allowed is forbidden--which is never said anywhere in any 4e text. That absolutely every combat must be in perfect lockstep to the party--except that the text explicitly says not to do that, and in fact is very clear that you should offer a wide variety of challenges, both combat and non-combat, across a range of levels including several levels up and down. Etc., etc."Anything not allowed is forbidden" is exactly the stance I find GMs fall into when they're in unfamiliar rules territory. When they're in familiar territory, however, when they know what the rules are and are thus comfortable and eager to use the tools available to them, the statement reverses entirely: "anything not forbidden is permitted," usually but not always with the caveat, "...but it might be harder to do."4e felt unfamiliar. Some of this had to do with the actual mechanics being a bit different. The vast majority, however, had to do with the presentation. I used to at least partially defend that presentation, saying it merely needed more polish, but as I get older I have come to understand that 4e's presentation was absolutely, positively awful. It needed at least another year in the oven, and a really, really savvy graphic designer to preserve as much as possible of the mechanical clarity and simplicity while VASTLY improving the aesthetic flair.With the way things are moving, especially given how the pandemic radically expanded the interest in online tabletop gaming, I think 4e will be seen as quite prescient in another, say, 10-15 years. Had the tablet-and-podcast boom happened in 2007 instead of 2014, 4e would have been right at home--and all the things you speak of as bog/bloat/etc. would have been invisible.</blockquote>

Verification