Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mercurius" data-source="post: 8633901" data-attributes="member: 59082">Yeah, I hear you - and that's kind of why, when this topic comes up, I over-explain and disclaim that discussing the failure of 4E to catch on and last is not an indictment of the game itself; the corollary being that the quality of the game and its popularity have no direct relationship. Actually, the quote you posted sort of supports this idea that a lot of 4E's failure had nothing to do with the game itself, but other factors (marketing, etc) - and that, as we agree, it might have done really well, even as well as 5E did, given the context and other factors that were at play over the last eight years.I mean, even art and presentation is a huge factor. I remember people being upset about the big white spaces and the lack of Todd Lockwood art. I didn't love the 4E presentation, and preferred the dense look of the 3.5 books (although not the covers, which almost worked but looked a little too kitschy, like something intentionally retro that you'd buy at Michael's crafts rather than in an actual antique shop). This illustrates how secondary elements like presentation go a long way towards how one feels about the substance itself. Or as Marshall McLuhan was famous for saying, the medium is the message - or rather, what we hear is how things are said just as much--if not more so--than what is actually being said.</blockquote>