Read on Twitter
I've heard stories of those who did play it, how many people complained about how (among other things) the 4e DMGs were too "basic" and how they just "catered to new DMs" and we "too easy to read", because apparently all those are bad things.
Regardless of the details and how you personally talked about and viewed 4th edition as one of the "old guard" who have played since 3e or 2e or before that...
I think we can all agree that 4e was soundly rejected by a very large portion of the D&D base.
I think we can all agree that 4e was soundly rejected by a very large portion of the D&D base.
Now, when we look at "DnDNext", the design process, play testing, and the decisions that were made (from everything from design to STYLE AND LAYOUT), a large portion of it was built on WotC soundly deciding "no way in hell are we making that mistake again".
The burgeon of new players and DMs is, in many ways, a happy accident of 5e, and not an intentional goal.
The first and foremost goal was to appease the "old-guard" and get them on board. To win back the folks who rejected the change, and to KEEP them. No more boat-rocking.
The first and foremost goal was to appease the "old-guard" and get them on board. To win back the folks who rejected the change, and to KEEP them. No more boat-rocking.
Now, returning to the article at hand. Do you SEE where I'm going here?
We can't make any meaningful change because 5e decision-makers are protective as hell of the legacy of D&D and won't make changes that are more than surface changed
BECAUSE YOU REJECTED THAT ALREADY.
We can't make any meaningful change because 5e decision-makers are protective as hell of the legacy of D&D and won't make changes that are more than surface changed
BECAUSE YOU REJECTED THAT ALREADY.
I'm not saying any of this is right or wrong or passing judgement or assigning blame. I'm just saying, this is a BIG part of why, and I'm not seeing anyone talk about it.
(Which, you know, is par for the course with 4e because "we don't talk about that edition")
(Which, you know, is par for the course with 4e because "we don't talk about that edition")
There's more nuance here, absolutely. But I said surface level only, so there you go.
If you want more meaningful change in D&D, you need to go and wrestle with 4th edition.
It's a piece of D&D past that's preventing it from moving forward.
/fin
If you want more meaningful change in D&D, you need to go and wrestle with 4th edition.
It's a piece of D&D past that's preventing it from moving forward.
/fin
OOR MAH GOSH Somebody pay me to write on this because for the love of all things, someone has got to.
One more addendum: I want to make sure it's clear that I'm agreeing with what @ArcanistPress is saying in their thread, and if you haven't read it (or the article that they're talking about) you probably should, or you'll miss some of the important context here.
