Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Beginning of the End" data-source="post: 5414726" data-attributes="member: 55271">It should be noted that this was deliberate on WotC's part. The designers specifically tried to define a &quot;sweet spot&quot; and then geared the game to aim for it.If it was your sweet spot, then 4E is fantastic. But if it wasn't (or if you liked the variety of previous editions), then there's really no way that 4E is going to convert you.I'm not sure whether to classify 4E's embrace of dissociated mechanics as part of this same inclination (largely eliminating the simulationist elements of D&amp;D's previously successful wedding of simulationist and gamist mechanics) or something separate. But it's also proven very problematic for many former fans.To put it a different way: D&amp;D used to have a big tent. 4E very consciously decided to eliminate that big tent in the belief that &quot;do one thing and do it well&quot; was a better way to go.Personally, I think D&amp;D abandoning the &quot;big tent&quot; model is really bad news for the RPG industry: D&amp;D remains the gateway product, and when the gateway product suddenly starts appealing to a more exclusionary set of tastes, the problem is self-evident.Essentials is supposedly their way of trying to make their new tent a little bigger. That may be a good thing in terms of attracting people new to gaming; but I suspect most of the people who got left out in the cold by 4E have already found new tents for themselves.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Beginning of the End, post: 5414726, member: 55271"] It should be noted that this was deliberate on WotC's part. The designers specifically tried to define a "sweet spot" and then geared the game to aim for it. If it was your sweet spot, then 4E is fantastic. But if it wasn't (or if you liked the variety of previous editions), then there's really no way that 4E is going to convert you. I'm not sure whether to classify 4E's embrace of dissociated mechanics as part of this same inclination (largely eliminating the simulationist elements of D&D's previously successful wedding of simulationist and gamist mechanics) or something separate. But it's also proven very problematic for many former fans. To put it a different way: D&D used to have a big tent. 4E very consciously decided to eliminate that big tent in the belief that "do one thing and do it well" was a better way to go. Personally, I think D&D abandoning the "big tent" model is really bad news for the RPG industry: D&D remains the gateway product, and when the gateway product suddenly starts appealing to a more exclusionary set of tastes, the problem is self-evident. Essentials is supposedly their way of trying to make their new tent a little bigger. That may be a good thing in terms of attracting people new to gaming; but I suspect most of the people who got left out in the cold by 4E have already found new tents for themselves. [/QUOTE]

Verification