Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6659332" data-attributes="member: 42582">As a game, from the perspective of a player, I think 4e was not a failure at all. There is heaps of material and the system is highly playable. There was a lack of clear vision from the designers, but that doesn't really affect me as a player. I can just impose my own vision. (For me there is a contrast here with 3E, which precludes me imposing my own vision because of the oil-and-water issue I mentioned upthread.)As a commercial venture I don't think 4e was a failure, in the sense that it seems to have clearly made more than it cost to produce, and it helped keep the D&amp;D department of WotC afloat for several years (including through the 5e design period).From the point of view of WotC's aspirations for D&amp;D, it clearly fell short. It seems likely that some of the features of 4e that are, for me as a player, strengths, were not strengths relative to WotC's aspirations.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 6659332, member: 42582"] As a [I]game[/I], from the perspective of a player, I think 4e was not a failure at all. There is heaps of material and the system is highly playable. There was a lack of clear vision from the designers, but that doesn't really affect me as a player. I can just impose my own vision. (For me there is a contrast here with 3E, which precludes me imposing my own vision because of the oil-and-water issue I mentioned upthread.) As a commercial venture I don't think 4e was a failure, in the sense that it seems to have clearly made more than it cost to produce, and it helped keep the D&D department of WotC afloat for several years (including through the 5e design period). From the point of view of WotC's aspirations for D&D, it clearly fell short. It seems likely that some of the features of 4e that are, for me as a player, strengths, were not strengths relative to WotC's aspirations. [/QUOTE]

Verification