Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="glass" data-source="post: 8727937" data-attributes="member: 12251">I think it was very clear that WotC/Hasbro higher ups only cared about D&amp;D as an IP factory, so Mearls and co got a free hand to do whatever&nbsp; as long as it did not cost too much. The fact that D&amp;D could be successful enough as a game to please Hasbro took everyone by surprise.That is pretty much exactly what happened. It is also pretty much exactly what I said happened, and pretty much the opposite of what you said happened in the post I responded to. Which make your first seven words rather confusing (why &quot;no&quot;, and then go on to confirm my version of events, and what are the &quot;it&quot; and the &quot;that&quot;.It was &quot;D&amp;D Next&quot;.Not just &quot;derisive&quot;, factually inaccurate. In theory inaccurate praise would also need correcting, but I don't recall that ever happening with 4e.You cannot not assume, you either assume their absence or their presence. 5e claims to assume their absence, but someone was saying upthread they admited in a sidebar in a supplement that martials are screwed without magic items, so in practice their presence is assumed.Criticism of 3e was and is often based on things that are actually problems with 3e. When that is not the case (which used to be not uncommon, but has virtually died out now), the reaction was generally similar. At least mine was, I cannot speak for everyone obviously._glass.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="glass, post: 8727937, member: 12251"] I think it was [I]very clear[/I] that WotC/Hasbro higher ups only cared about D&D as an IP factory, so Mearls and co got a free hand to do whatever as long as it did not cost too much. The fact that D&D could be successful enough[I] as a game [/I]to please Hasbro took everyone by surprise. That is pretty much exactly what happened. It is also pretty much exactly what I said happened, and pretty much the opposite of what you said happened in the post I responded to. Which make your first seven words rather confusing (why "no", and then go on to confirm my version of events, and what are the "it" and the "that". It was "D&D Next". Not just "derisive", factually inaccurate. In theory inaccurate praise would also need correcting, but I don't recall that ever happening with 4e. You cannot not assume, you either assume their absence or their presence. 5e claims to assume their absence, but someone was saying upthread they admited in a sidebar in a supplement that martials are screwed without magic items, so in practice their presence is assumed. Criticism of 3e was and is often based on things that are actually problems with 3e. When that is not the case (which used to be not uncommon, but has virtually died out now), the reaction was generally similar. At least mine was, I cannot speak for everyone obviously. _ glass. [/QUOTE]

Verification