Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 8728009" data-attributes="member: 22779">I've always been of the opinion that 4e's biggest mistake was basing the game off of organized play principles.&nbsp; Virtually all the things that 4e set out to fix were issues that came up in organized play.&nbsp; And, the reason for nearly all the design decisions for 4e was based in the idea that you would be playing with strangers a significant amount of time.Those two things are, IMO, the primary reason for the rejection of 4e by a large segment of the fandom.&nbsp; People with stable groups (or even semi-stable groups) who had no experience or interest in playing with strangers couldn't begin to understand why 4e did the things that it did and explained the reasons the way they explained them.&nbsp; So, you had this segment of the hobby that just was not speaking the same language and it caused all sorts of misunderstandings and the whole thing just spiraled down into this never ending cycle of accusations and people getting their backs up.&nbsp; [USER=12251]@glass[/USER] - it's not entirely that the things that were being said about 4e were inaccurate (although, IMO, they very much were), it's just that many who were making the criticisms just weren't speaking the same language.&nbsp; Thus you get all the &quot;ey&quot; phrases - board gamey, video gamey, etc etc.&nbsp; The language to criticize the game just hadn't evolved to the point at that time that people could articulate the issues they were having in a way that could lead to any sort of compromise.&nbsp; Which just led to so much frustration and hard feelings all the way around.I mean, all you have to do is look at how 5e borrows so many things from 4e without so much as a whimper.&nbsp; Mostly because WotC had 2 years to explain to everyone why they were doing the things they were doing and what they were trying to do, rather than the, what, six months of run up to 4e that was marred by all sorts of really, REALLY bad PR.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 8728009, member: 22779"] I've always been of the opinion that 4e's biggest mistake was basing the game off of organized play principles. Virtually all the things that 4e set out to fix were issues that came up in organized play. And, the reason for nearly all the design decisions for 4e was based in the idea that you would be playing with strangers a significant amount of time. Those two things are, IMO, the primary reason for the rejection of 4e by a large segment of the fandom. People with stable groups (or even semi-stable groups) who had no experience or interest in playing with strangers couldn't begin to understand why 4e did the things that it did and explained the reasons the way they explained them. So, you had this segment of the hobby that just was not speaking the same language and it caused all sorts of misunderstandings and the whole thing just spiraled down into this never ending cycle of accusations and people getting their backs up. [USER=12251]@glass[/USER] - it's not entirely that the things that were being said about 4e were inaccurate (although, IMO, they very much were), it's just that many who were making the criticisms just weren't speaking the same language. Thus you get all the "ey" phrases - board gamey, video gamey, etc etc. The language to criticize the game just hadn't evolved to the point at that time that people could articulate the issues they were having in a way that could lead to any sort of compromise. Which just led to so much frustration and hard feelings all the way around. I mean, all you have to do is look at how 5e borrows so many things from 4e without so much as a whimper. Mostly because WotC had 2 years to explain to everyone why they were doing the things they were doing and what they were trying to do, rather than the, what, six months of run up to 4e that was marred by all sorts of really, REALLY bad PR. [/QUOTE]

Verification