Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 9097599" data-attributes="member: 82106">My reading of 4e is that there were deep divisions between different groups within the dev team. Some were afraid of change, some welcomed it. As a result, you have a game that IS narrativist in much of its design, certainly very player empowering, and yet never quite outright commits to it as an absolute. Then MM and his crew came along and wrote those super trad bricks of modules that show off the system in the worst possible light. Well, we know what side of that argument Mike was on. But, frankly, I think they understood what I've said about 5e, that if you simply stay welded to a part of the community that can't adapt and move on, then you're going to die sooner or later. I'm not an optimist in terms of the long-term viability of D&D itself. I mean, we can criticize various things about 4e, the way it was launched, the failure to actually go ahead and say "play this as a narrativist system" and Mike's backpeddling, but it works and it is a very solid game. I constantly hear from people who are much happier with it now after a few years and are going back and playing it again or for the first time. Honestly, I can't say how WotC was able to befuddle itself, but if they'd released 5e in 2008, they'd have released a new thing in 2016 or 2018 at the latest anyway...</blockquote>