Could someone please point me there, once again?
58286228 wrote:As a DM, I find it easier to just punish the players no matter what they pick, as I assume they will pick stuff that is broken. I mean, fight after fight they kill all the monsters without getting killed themselves! What sort of a game is this, anyway?
4e was the "modern" D&D, right? The one that had design notes that drew from more modern games, and generally appealed to those who preferred the design priorities of modern games. I'm only speculating, but I'd hazard a guess that those same 4e players are the ones running the wide gamut of other games at Origins.
D&D 4e players are pretty much by definition the players who didn't mind, and often embraced, D&D being "different". That willingness to embrace the different might also mean they are less attached to 4e itself, and are willing to go elsewhere.
This is a brilliant insight. I was thinking along those lines myself.
There are so many tiny indie games that if you added them all together they would definitely rival Pathfinder. If there were a dominant game for those people it would do better but there is no dominant game. Until 4e, the indie people were ignored by the makers of D&D.
Yep. 4E was embraced by the 'system matters' crowd who love analyzing and innovating systems. That crowd had turned its back on D&D as a clunky anachronism. But with 4E, their design values were embraced and validated. 4E was D&D for system-wonks. And with support for 4E pulled, the system-wonks have moved on to other systems. The tropes and traditions of D&D never had much appeal for them anyway. Now there are other systems to learn and study. It's like boardgamegeeks - always a new system on the horizon. Why play an ancient games that's seven years old?
Of course, not all people who play and enjoy 4E fit that mould. I'm running a 4E campaign right now, and my long-time D&D players are enjoying it fine. But with the system-wonks decamping, the 4E players-base lost the wind in its sails.