SPECIAL NOTICE
Malicious code was found on the site, which has been removed, but would have been able to access files and the database, revealing email addresses, posts, and encoded passwords (which would need to be decoded). However, there is no direct evidence that any such activity occurred. REGARDLESS, BE SURE TO CHANGE YOUR PASSWORDS. And as is good practice, remember to never use the same password on more than one site. While performing housekeeping, we also decided to upgrade the forums.
This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.

Margaret Weis: Whistle-blower or Vindictive Hag?

Started by RPGPundit, October 18, 2011, 12:32:24 PM

Previous topic - Next topic
Print
Go Down Pages 1 2 3 4 5
User actions

Spinachcat

#15
October 18, 2011, 11:14:03 PM
What if Monte isn't working on 5e?

What if the alterations to 4e we are seeing in the Neverwinter Facebook game represent the coming of a 4.5e for WotC's online game table?

Perhaps Monte's here for an "edition fix" instead of a "new edition"?

The Christmas layoffs should be interesting for the rumormill...

YcoreRixle

#16
October 18, 2011, 11:56:23 PM
Quote from: everloss;485553Like no one knew that already.

Yep. It's non-news.
Frank Brunner
Spellbound Kingdoms

Kyle Aaron

#17
October 18, 2011, 11:56:48 PM
Why would it be vindictive for her to reveal or make that up? How is that "whistleblowing", it's not like we're talking corruption in the UN or something. If true, the news that Monte Cook is writing D&D5e is a startlingly innocuous and uninteresting fact.

Any details of the new edition would be more interesting and useful to know. I feel it rather unlikely that it'll be a rules-light 128 page book illustrated by Larry Elmore or Errol Otus, but apart from that none of us could possibly guess. When it comes out, we'll know what it's like. Exactly who writes it, who cares.
The Viking Hat GM
Conflict, the adventure game of modern warfare
Wastrel Wednesdays, livestream with Dungeondelver

The Butcher

#18
October 19, 2011, 12:27:39 AM
Quote from: B.T.;485594You say this as if it's a bad thing.

It's kind of sad, really. I can see the reasoning behind, say, Pundejo's grudge with The Forge, even if I don't usually agree with his assumptions and generalizations. But this is just pathetic even for his own low standards.

Quote from: Windjammer;485595More importantly, by burying his excellent observation in a subsidiary post, The Butcher wasted a golden opportunity for another traffic generating thread of which this site (desperately) needs more - didn't he?

Dear Diary,

Some weeks ago, Pundit posted a thread about Margaret Weis posting about Monte Cook posting about (not) working on 5E. I think it's hogwash and much ado about nothing, and merits all the non-attention on the intarwebs it can garner.

Don't you agree?

Outragedly yours,

Butch

Touché. :hatsoff:

:D

Quote from: Cranewings;485615Dragon Lance touched some of you in the naughty parts.

Shit talking Weis. Weak.

And the kicker is, I fucking hate Dragonlance. I can't see the point of badmouthing Weis, though, not even as site traffic bait. It's just weird.

TheShadow

#19
October 19, 2011, 09:35:55 AM
Quote from: kryyst;485559Maybe I'm missing something but I think it'd be stupid to assume WoTC isn't working on 5e.  4e has been out for a couple years now.  Regardless of the success of it.  Now is the time that they'd start working on a 5e anyway.

WoTC's product is D&D.  That's what they do.  They need to keep pushing editions from time to time to refresh the product cycle.

Nonsense. 1e lasted 12 years, 2e and 3e both around 10 years. So based on the past record it's far from a no-brainer that they would start working on 5e only 3 years after the release of 4e. All the more now that the 3.0 to 3.5 transition and even more so, the 3.x to 4e transition have exposed the weaknesses of the reboot treadmill model. If 5e is released in the next 2-3 years it will be a hell of a gamble. In the light of the failure of Essentials to revitalize the line and the unprecedented situation of competition with PF and the OSR, they will need a brilliant combination of marketing and game design to get as many people to buy a new edition as bought 4e (let alone 3.x.)
You can shake your fists at the sky. You can do a rain dance. You can ignore the clouds completely. But none of them move the clouds.

- Dave "The Inexorable" Noonan solicits community feedback before 4e\'s release

Bedrockbrendan

#20
October 19, 2011, 09:39:32 AM
Quote from: The_Shadow;485660In the light of the failure of Essentials to revitalize the line and the unprecedented situation of competition with PF and the OSR, they will need a brilliant combination of marketing and game design to get as many people to buy a new edition as bought 4e (let alone 3.x.)

My guess is that was the idea of hiring monte cook. I also think it is why Cook took over mearls column. Mearls is still tied to 4E in peoples minds, but most people associate Cook with 3E (and his criticism of 3.5 probably gives him a bit of a bump in peoples' minds). He is definitely the one person I can think of that would soften anti-4E minds when the next edition comes out. Not sure Cook will produce what people assume he will though.

estar

#21
October 19, 2011, 12:25:40 PM
Quote from: The_Shadow;485660In the light of the failure of Essentials to revitalize the line and the unprecedented situation of competition with PF and the OSR,

As much I as advocate for the OSR, the OSR is a drop in the bucket compared to the volume Wizard moves in a year. By far the real threat is Pathfinder and Paizo.

If I had to guess, at best the aggregate volume of OSR sales is equal to a medium size gaming company at the lower end of the scale. Low Thousands per year most of that in the retro clone rulebooks.

danbuter

#22
October 19, 2011, 03:55:02 PM
Quote from: The_Shadow;485660Nonsense. 1e lasted 12 years, 2e and 3e both around 10 years. So based on the past record it's far from a no-brainer that they would start working on 5e only 3 years after the release of 4e.

You don't really believe that, do you? A 4 or 5 year product cycle is actually "normal" compared to most other rpg's, and is very long when compared to just about any other product type.
Sword and Board - My blog about BFRPG, S&W, Hi/Lo Heroes, and other games.
Sword & Board: BFRPG Supplement Free pdf. Cheap print version.
Bushi D6  Samurai and D6!
Bushi setting map

Bedrockbrendan

#23
October 19, 2011, 03:56:49 PM
Quote from: danbuter;485695You don't really believe that, do you? A 4 or 5 year product cycle is actually "normal" compared to most other rpg's, and is very long when compared to just about any other product type.

I think five years is fine for a new edition if it is relatively minor mechanical changes (I seem to recall Cthulu was pretty consistent from edition to edition). But the kind of jumps from 2e to 3E to 4E every five years would definitely drive me from D&D.

1989

#24
October 19, 2011, 10:11:03 PM
Quote from: The_Shadow;485660Nonsense. 1e lasted 12 years, 2e and 3e both around 10 years.

I have to correct you here:

1e lasted 12 years.

2e lasted 11 years.

3e lasted a mere 3 years.

3.5e lasted 5 years.

(Total of 8 years for 3.0 and 3.5).

4e came out in 2008. It's been three years so far. I say it will last less than 5 years.

Sacrificial Lamb

#25
October 20, 2011, 02:24:30 AM
Quote from: 1989;485729I have to correct you here:

1e lasted 12 years.

2e lasted 11 years.

3e lasted a mere 3 years.

3.5e lasted 5 years.

(Total of 8 years for 3.0 and 3.5).

4e came out in 2008. It's been three years so far. I say it will last less than 5 years.

Actually, if you want to get really technical, 1e lasted 14 years, as TSR was simultaneously selling both 1e and 2e between 1989 to 1991. Just sayin'. :)

B.T.

#26
October 20, 2011, 05:56:14 AM
QuoteIt's kind of sad, really. I can see the reasoning behind, say, Pundejo's grudge with The Forge, even if I don't usually agree with his assumptions and generalizations. But this is just pathetic even for his own low standards.
It's just how Pundit operates.  Personally, I find his ravings amusing.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;530561Y\'know, I\'ve learned something from this thread. Both B.T. and Koltar are idiots, but whereas B.T. possesses a malign intelligence, Koltar is just a drooling fuckwit.

So, that\'s something, I guess.

daniel_ream

#27
October 20, 2011, 03:31:17 PM
Quote from: 1989;4857293e lasted a mere 3 years.
3.5e lasted 5 years.

Aside: I am not a D&D player much (any more) and I think I've only ever seen 1E, 2E, 3.5 and 4E.  Was there enough material changed/added in 3.5 to justify calling it a new edition?[1]  Am I starting an edition war just by asking this?


[1] Using as a benchmark the deltas between 1E -> 2E, and 2E -> 3E, which were much greater than, say, CoC's edition changes or even Shadowrun's for the most part.
D&D is becoming Self-Referential.  It is no longer Setting Referential, where it takes references outside of itself. It is becoming like Ouroboros in its self-gleaning for tropes, no longer attached, let alone needing outside context.
~ Opaopajr

Cranewings

#28
October 20, 2011, 03:43:16 PM
Quote from: daniel_ream;485836Aside: I am not a D&D player much (any more) and I think I've only ever seen 1E, 2E, 3.5 and 4E.  Was there enough material changed/added in 3.5 to justify calling it a new edition?[1]  Am I starting an edition war just by asking this?


[1] Using as a benchmark the deltas between 1E -> 2E, and 2E -> 3E, which were much greater than, say, CoC's edition changes or even Shadowrun's for the most part.

No, there wasn't. My players weren't even aware what the differences were. The only one I can think of is Rangers had d8s instead of d10s for HD.

I'm sure there were other differences but, no, same shit.

Bedrockbrendan

#29
October 20, 2011, 03:57:03 PM
Quote from: Cranewings;485838No, there wasn't. My players weren't even aware what the differences were. The only one I can think of is Rangers had d8s instead of d10s for HD.

I'm sure there were other differences but, no, same shit.

Under the hood there were quite a few changes that altered the game if I recall properly (i seem to remember types suddenly became very imprtant with magic weapons and monsters --- think stacking may have been different). But these were things i didn't really notice until the rules lawyer informed me during play. Personally Buying the 3.5 rule books felt like a needless waste of money to me.
Print
Go Up Pages 1 2 3 4 5
User actions