I'm certainly not going to bring it up, but as there are huge threads on ENWorld and RPGnet about it; I would have thought someone would have l linked it here...
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPundit;522018I'm certainly not going to bring it up, but as there are huge threads on ENWorld and RPGnet about it; I would have thought someone would have l linked it here...
RPGPundit
I saw this but didnt know what to make of it. Really been trying to take a break on this stuff as i have reached a point where my eyes were just too clouded from internet discussions to soak up the info clearly.
What would be amusing is if these leaks were actually deliberately planted by Mearls, Cook, or through several of their unpaid (or paid) minions.
Quote from: ggroy;522024What would be amusing is if these leaks were actually deliberately planted by Mearls, Cook, or through several of their unpaid (or paid) minions.
You'd think WotC wouldn't be deliberately starting what ends up being long bitter flamewars, but such is the result of everything PR-related they've done for some time now.
Sometimes the most effective PR is to neither confirm nor deny anything.
Quote from: ggroy;522024What would be amusing is if these leaks were actually deliberately planted by Mearls, Cook, or through several of their unpaid (or paid) minions.
I dont think that is thd case. My guess is the flame wars are more of a hindrance to uniting the base than anything else
Wait, there's a leak?
Where can I find it?
Quote from: J Arcane;522029Wait, there's a leak?
Where can I find it?
http://pastebin.com/zRWmNeZd
That's amazing.
My impression has always been, the game designer designs the game, and then the players decide whether they like it or not. Clearly this is no longer the case.
Design by commitee is almost certainly doomed to failure. On the other hand, including elements important to gamers is vital to the success of a new rpg game.
The trick is, to strike the right balance, including enough elements and mechanics that gamers like, without overloading the gamer. It's easy, when you design by commitee to distance yourself from the design if it's a failure by disavowing your participation in the part of the game design that is unpopular. What's not so easy, is determining what will and will not be popular and used.
Because I don't have a dog in this fight, I wish them well, and recommend whenever possible that they choose to keep it simple, and pare down overall complexity, however leave options and a framework for the players to add in complex mechanics as desired.
Quote from: RPGPundit;522018I'm certainly not going to bring it up...
You just did.
Quote from: thecasualoblivion;522025You'd think WotC wouldn't be deliberately starting what ends up being long bitter flamewars, but such is the result of everything PR-related they've done for some time now.
If it had been them, they'd have been idiots for giving it to SA, who dislike and distrust 5e (as they are becoming the "grognards" they so hate) and would (and in this case, did) spin the leak in the worst possible light and framed with the greatest possible misinformation to make sure that the first glance many people would have of the game would sound as awful as possible.
RPGPundit
Quote from: ggroy;522031http://pastebin.com/zRWmNeZd
Aww. I was hoping for an actual document, not some SA poster's claims about what's in it.
Fuck that. Back to H&H.
Well, most of all, it cements the impression that WotC circulated a playtest document that is so partial and fragmented that it is meaningless to speak even of a v.1.0 of a playtest. Which is what several people, including Frank Trollman and (iirc) Justin Alexander, have pointed out weeks ago.
Remainder of post is a quote from an EnWorld poster who has read the entire 1.0 document. It's spot on about what's wrong with the 5e roll out. It's one fragmented mess.
-----------------
"It is not possible to talk about 5e unless we can also talk about the previous games, games who's fans the developers have clearly stated they seek to include in it.
It is vital to be able to contrast those systems, and their qualities, when the stated goal of the developers is to make a system which supports play as represented by various editions.
If 5e doesn't give fans of 4e, or 3e, or 1e what they want, including in contrast to other editions, then it's not fulfilling one of it's core design goals. And if discussions of the system are to be fruitful, they must be able to discuss those contrasts, as well, despite the bad history of such discussions.
It is impossible to discuss the new system otherwise, considering it's key goals.
Likewise, contrary to what a lot of people seem to think, you can't just plonk all the bits of one edition or another in some hypothetical module or later version- the game on all levels must be built to handle those modules, even when the modules are not in use.
Pursuant to this, having read it, and since i'm not under NDA (and unlikely to ever be so since i'm genuinly critical of the process), I do not feel that 1.0 shows any signs of a genuine 'modular' system, or one which 4e-style modules in particular could be plugged in to. Nor is the early stage of the development an excuse for this- on the contrary, such components or foundations should be the very first thing laid down in design, if such an ambitious goal is to be realized.
To design a game which offers such a feature, you have to have that in mind from day one, to be sure that you don't design another part of the game which clashes with it. You have to have the modular system clearly laid out at least in test form, so you can check it against new work.
For instance, when making a spell which involves movement, the 5e devs have to be able to ask themselves "How does this new kind of movement relate to how we are managing the difference between combat on a battle map, and combat without a map? Does it translate between the two in a way comparable to the way other movement modes translate? Or will it act very differently between the two modules?"
Instead, in 1.0 we have. . . everything that used to be in squares, is in feet instead. That's it. That's all they've got to build the 'tactical combat' module on. To say nothing of people who might have hoped for a better take on mapless combat (using something like FATE style zones, for instance). And again, other options would also need support. They'd need something to plug into.
That is what 'modular' means, after all. You have to have the sockets and plugs in place in the base design, so you can plug bits into them. And, much like a hard-point on the wing of a jet fighter where a missile is mounted, the structure has to be built to handle the extra weight, for when it's in place. You can't just pile a bunch of extra rules on, you need to be able to give the GM a functional workload, regardless of the complexity level.
Those plugs don't exist in 1.0. There are no hard points. Seemingly no effort is being made to manage complexity at various levels, if the fluctuation in complexity in this example is anything to go by.
There's just a bunch of 'fantasy roleplaying game' with very little genuine oversight displayed. Certainly, there's no sign of the kind of core mechanic or mechanics which would allow variations in say, wether combat takes place on a battle map, or what a fighter does apart from dealing damage (or how it is that this old school fighter is somehow also a newbie-friendly fighter). You can't just 'add a feat' or 'change a rule', you need to figure out how those module-feats compare to others, and how changing a rule impacts other systems.
And yes, I get that some people don't care about things like that, or disagree with the assertion i'd make of how much fun it ruins when rules implode or neglect a key class because of design issues of this sort. But again, as a fan of 4e amongst other games, I do not feel that this is a promising development, and since wotc has stated a clear goal of including people like me in the game, that makes this a problem.
At best, if such module-friendly design is present, it's very deeply buried and disguised- but that would also damage it, since DMs using such a system would have to understand it, in order to make it work.
People will make a bunch of excuses. As i've said, these excuses will define the discussions over 5e, clearly. Apparently the initial test version of a game has nothing to do with the game? It's just kinda. . what, a coincidence? There to test the font? That's the conventional wisdom apparently?
Hogwash. This isn't internal playtesting. This is something they are taking to conventions.
A playtest is not an excuse to just throw some stuff together and hurl it at people, like some kind of developmental reading of entrails. It is meant to test and iterate the design.
If 1.0 doesn't have those features, then the whole process will involve playing catch-up and never really locking such features down.
Where's the design? Where's the edition fan inclusion? Where's the modular system? It's not in 1.0. And it should be."
The version I have, the real version, doesn't look fragmented at all.
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPundit;522041The version I have, the real version, doesn't look fragmented at all.
RPGPundit
And see, this is why I want to see it for myself. I can't verify his claims or yours because it's all through someone else's lens.
If you're gonna leak something, either post the doc, or shut up.
Quote from: RPGPundit;522041The version I have, the real version, doesn't look fragmented at all.
RPGPundit
I don't know if the final game will be to my liking or not, but one thing I don't expect from cook or mearls is fragmented. Just doesn't seem to fit my experience with either. My biggest concern is them getting swept up in their own innovations more than anything else (that or just not grasping where the fault lines really are in the 4e versus pre-4e debate).
Quote from: RPGPundit;522041The version I have, the real version, doesn't look fragmented at all.
RPGPundit
Agreed.
20 different conditions though? :eek: Christ.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;522044I don't know if the final game will be to my liking or not, but one thing I don't expect from cook or mearls is fragmented. Just doesn't seem to fit my experience with either. My biggest concern is them getting swept up in their own innovations more than anything else (that or just not grasping where the fault lines really are in the 4e versus pre-4e debate).
I don't expect fragmented from Mearls, and for Monte maybe not fragmented but overly-complex pieces that don't fit together or especially don't work well together is certainly on the table.
Quote from: thecasualoblivion;522056I don't expect fragmented from Mearls, and for Monte maybe not fragmented but overly-complex pieces that don't fit together or especially don't work well together is certainly on the table.
Complex in places with monte perhaps, but generally I find his stuff fits together pretty well. Where 3E got messy was all the supplemental add-ons that came later. Do you have any specific examples in mind since we may just be talking past one another speaking in general terms.
Quote from: CRKrueger;52205120 different conditions though? :eek: Christ.
That was the one piece that really gave me pause. But withut context or more information I wasn't sure what to make of it.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;522059Complex in places with monte perhaps, but generally I find his stuff fits together pretty well. Where 3E got messy was all the supplemental add-ons that came later. Do you have any specific examples in mind since we may just be talking past one another speaking in general terms.
1. Multiclassing--looks much better on paper than it worked in practice
2. Saving throws vs spell DCs
3. Building enemies using the same rules as PCs and the increase in DM workload that lead to.
4. Concentration Skill, Combat Casting feat, the 5ft step, and spell interruption.
ect.
Quote from: thecasualoblivion;5220611. Multiclassing--looks much better on paper than it worked in practice
2. Saving throws vs spell DCs
3. Building enemies using the same rules as PCs and the increase in DM workload that lead to.
ect.
1&3 were actually the two things I thought 3e did really well. 1 was obviousoy a double edged sword and required effort by the Gm to prevent min/maxing, but it was a very smooth way to customize charaters. 3 defintiely could increase workload (though you were perfectly free to use the monsters from the MM as written or use the stock character stats in the DMG). What I loved aboutit was it allowed me to really customize opponents. I don't think that these things didn't fit together, they just demanded a but more oversight from the GM, and a group of mature players to work well.
What about number 2 didn't you like.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;522044I don't know if the final game will be to my liking or not, but one thing I don't expect from cook or mearls is fragmented. Just doesn't seem to fit my experience with either. My biggest concern is them getting swept up in their own innovations more than anything else (that or just not grasping where the fault lines really are in the 4e versus pre-4e debate).
That last part in parentheses, that's been my biggest headache thus far. The former, not so much. What new mechanical innovations there are actually pretty fucking awesome.
RPGPundit
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;5220631&3 were actually the two things I thought 3e did really well. 1 was obviousoy a double edged sword and required effort by the Gm to prevent min/maxing, but it was a very smooth way to customize charaters. 3 defintiely could increase workload (though you were perfectly free to use the monsters from the MM as written or use the stock character stats in the DMG). What I loved aboutit was it allowed me to really customize opponents. I don't think that these things didn't fit together, they just demanded a but more oversight from the GM, and a group of mature players to work well.
What about number 2 didn't you like.
1 tended to generate bad results without heavy min/maxing. Demanding more work from the DM and good behavior from the players is basically my point. The game didn't really fit together or work well without positive input from the people playing it. If left to its own devices or placed under any sort of stress, it broke down quickly. AD&D 1E and 2E were far more robust games.
As for #2, they really changed the mathematics behind saving throws compared to AD&D without really realizing the consequences of doing so.
What I've come to expect from Monte more than anything is things that look great on paper and sound great in theory, but cause unforseen problems when you actually start playing in the game and cause more problems than they're worth.
Quote from: thecasualoblivion;5220614. Concentration Skill, Combat Casting feat, the 5ft step, and spell interruption.
ect.
i can see how some people might not like these (and combat casting feat was problematic in my opinion) but spell interuption and concentration were one of the things they did to balance out casters in the editionl if you use those it does mitigate the caster supremacy people often complain about.
Quote from: RPGPundit;522041The version I have, the real version, doesn't look fragmented at all.
I will confirm this, the playtest 1.0 document covers roughly the same stuff that the holmes blue book covers. It needs some final polishing but Wizards could easily turn it into a new Basic set. A true basic set.
Quote from: RPGPundit;522066That last part in parentheses, that's been my biggest headache thus far. The former, not so much. What new mechanical innovations there are actually pretty fucking awesome.
RPGPundit
That is encouraging, and also confirms my suspicion that they need to come to forums like this to see how some of e 4e elements drive some players nuts (though it is good to know they can do so indirectly with you as a consultant).
I wouldn't put any stock in it even if it were an official document. It might *hint* at things, but it's not really substantial if it's just a "1.0" playtest.
Story of the head of lettuce for an amazing price (if you come back tomorrow), and all that. My current company is working with a fairly large firm that has software that currently works -- the basic shell of the program is working, at least. They're promising us it's going to do other things in the future, and they've even shown us some minor implementations of those ideas. But until that piece of software is on our computers, doing everything they promised us it would do, or some variation thereof, it doesn't matter what's in their release docs or demo versions.
Similarly, WotC could have epiphanies or issues and completely rejigger some parts of the game between now and the final release.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;522072That is encouraging, and also confirms my suspicion that they need to come to forums like this to see how some of e 4e elements drive some players nuts (though it is good to know they can do so indirectly with you as a consultant).
The same could be said about WotC trying to bring back elements of older editions without alienating the 4E crowd by doing things that drive them nuts.
Quote from: thecasualoblivion;522075The same could be said about WotC trying to bring back elements of older editions without alienating the 4E crowd by doing things that drive them nuts.
And without you pouring gazoline on the threads here, on RPGnet (where you got yourself threadbanned) and on ENWorld also, as you've been busy doing for the last while.
Quote from: estar;522071I will confirm this, the playtest 1.0 document covers roughly the same stuff that the holmes blue book covers. It needs some final polishing but Wizards could easily turn it into a new Basic set. A true basic set.
You've said this a couple times before. So it does have the "sockets" that the SA poster said they didn't? I get the idea they have the simple framework done and it's solid, now all that's left is the "widgets" and "doohickeys"?
Quote from: thecasualoblivion;522075The same could be said about WotC trying to bring back elements of older editions without alienating the 4E crowd by doing things that drive them nuts.
Except no-one gives a shit about you, because your game was the worst selling one in the history of D&D.
They want TSR numbers, not RPGnet numbers.
Quote from: estar;522071I will confirm this, the playtest 1.0 document covers roughly the same stuff that the holmes blue book covers. It needs some final polishing but Wizards could easily turn it into a new Basic set. A true basic set.
Yes, that was my feeling as well.
Quote from: thecasualoblivion;522075The same could be said about WotC trying to bring back elements of older editions without alienating the 4E crowd by doing things that drive them nuts.
I am probably a bit biased on this one, but I really think 4E is the odd edition out, and while it is important to bring 4E fans into the fold, they really need to worry about the lost fans to survive. Basically it seems 4E was designed for folks who never really quite liked D&D in the first place (or had major issues with it and played simply because that is what their group played or they were holding out for developments). But to restore the D&D brand, IMO, they really need to purge some of the stuff that 4E brought to the table. Basically I think they should try to get the former fanbase back with the core system, and offer up enough modular options that 4E folks can rebuild a 4E style game if they choose to. I believe the things they need to do to bring folks like myself back to the table, very well may irritate your standard 4E player.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;522083I am probably a bit biased on this one, but I really think 4E is the odd edition out, and while it is important to bring 4E fans into the fold, they really need to worry about the lost fans to survive. Basically it seems 4E was designed for folks who never really quite liked D&D in the first place (or had major issues with it and played simply because that is what their group played or they were holding out for developments). But to restore the D&D brand, IMO, they really need to purge some of the stuff that 4E brought to the table. Basically I think they should try to get the former fanbase back with the core system, and offer up enough modular options that 4E folks can rebuild a 4E style game if they choose to. I believe the things they need to do to bring folks like myself back to the table, very well may irritate your standard 4E player.
There is a reason why Pathfinder is and was kicking 4e butt to the curb where it counts, sales. The game should'nt be aimed at expressly trying to get Pathfinder players per say but that huge contigient of lasped 3/3.5e lapsed players into the fold, for that alot of the 4e stuff must go.
For example I don't want 5e to be a redo of 3e I have Pathfinder and FantasyCraft for that niche but I do want a game that brings back the best of what it offers along with with 1e's simplicity. Add in modern sensibilities, and new twists on old stuff and you've got something. It must be it's own game to get me truly interested.
Quote from: RPGPundit;522082Yes, that was my feeling as well.
And I will third on those feelings: yes it's coherent, yes the 1.0 playtest covers roughly the same ground as Holmes basic, and yes, it could be released as a "true" basic set with some polishing, of course.
We can argue over the numbers of who plays what, but I have a strong feeling that WotC won't reach their target numbers if they alienate the 4E crowd.
Quote from: Marleycat;522080You've said this a couple times before. So it does have the "sockets" that the SA poster said they didn't? I get the idea they have the simple framework done and it's solid, now all that's left is the "widgets" and "doohickeys"?
No they have more to go with the core like higher levels and more classes. But you can see hints of what they are working on throughout the playtest. So far I haven't seen any showstoppers yet for fans of any edition. But there is still a lot of ground to cover.
Don't get me wrong people will bitch about these rules, just not what they are bitching about right now. The playtest rules are a step in right direction for tabletop roleplaying as a whole not judt for old style, new style whatever. The main reason is that the core is clean, simple, and straight forward. And they should be able to add the optional detail to what there for people who prefer that.
Isn't this really old news, which had been pretty much proved a fake?
Quote from: estar;522091No they have more to go with the core like higher levels and more classes. But you can see hints of what they are working on throughout the playtest. So far I haven't seen any showstoppers yet for fans of any edition. But there is still a lot of ground to cover.
Don't get me wrong people will bitch about these rules, just not what they are bitching about right now. The playtest rules are a step in right direction for tabletop roleplaying as a whole not judt for old style, new style whatever. The main reason is that the core is clean, simple, and straight forward. And they should be able to add the optional detail to what there for people who prefer that.
Sounds good. I expect people to bitch, that's what they do. Looks like they have the big thing done, clean, simple and straightforward base with that they can do the rest nice and robust and solid.
A starting document that covers the ground of the old basic sets is a good start, but I hope when they finish it covers all the ground, at least lightly, that the old AD&D DMG covers.
All of 4e covers the ground of the blue box...but there needs to be more than what goes on during fighting.
Quote from: thecasualoblivion;522087We can argue over the numbers of who plays what, but I have a strong feeling that WotC won't reach their target numbers if they alienate the 4E crowd.
It really doesn't matter who they do or do not alienate. If the target numbers are just too unrealistic for a tabletop roleplaying game then it is what it is.
Theoretically, they can please every fucking D&D fan that ever picked up the dice AND convince them to sit round the fire singing hippie songs together and STLL not generate the revenue that corporate wants to see.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;522083I am probably a bit biased on this one, but I really think 4E is the odd edition out, and while it is important to bring 4E fans into the fold, they really need to worry about the lost fans to survive. Basically it seems 4E was designed for folks who never really quite liked D&D in the first place (or had major issues with it and played simply because that is what their group played or they were holding out for developments). But to restore the D&D brand, IMO, they really need to purge some of the stuff that 4E brought to the table. Basically I think they should try to get the former fanbase back with the core system, and offer up enough modular options that 4E folks can rebuild a 4E style game if they choose to. I believe the things they need to do to bring folks like myself back to the table, very well may irritate your standard 4E player.
See, this I DON'T get. Not to single you out, mind you. I know you mean well, and as a member of community I would too, olive branches, kumbaya, and all that. But as a business decision? It's like trying to roll up Sisyphus' boulder while shooting yourself in the foot.
As a business you want the old fans back (obviously your new ones weren't good enough to maintain status quo), and you want the new game K.I.S.S. for new fans -- especially kids -- to join. 4e fans already have 4e recently in print and an established DDI. Trying to appease everyone in the same product at this point is madness. Someone must lose out; so why not the "edition" that wasn't cutting it.
The easiest business decision, considering I too believe 4e to be the most odd-one-out of the editions, is to relabel 4e as a Tactical edition, keeping it as its own (now 4+ years tested) tactical legacy with occasional product depending on fan popularity. Then run D&DNext RPG as closely to earlier editions as possible. This would be a compromise that 4e will get additional future product, but will not carry the flagship history as the RPG.
This does two beneficial things. It greatly simplifies D&DNext RPG design, making it more KISS casual player friendly, and wholly discards "who wins, who loses" paranoiac bickering. And it spins off an already established Tactics line of the likes to compete with Games Workshop Gorka Morka/Necromunda Tactical games. It also sets them up where any Realm Expansion with Mass Combat in the RPG can relatively cross over into Warhammer-style army Tactical Miniatures. This positioning puts them into relative parity competition with GW's offered product lines.
And if they're really smart they'd play up to their strengths of pre-fab My Precious Encounters (TM), a la Duplicate Bridge, and run tourney player score lists like the did for Encounters. I just don't see this as a hard decision business wise. Dragging it out like this just heightens sturm und drang, but to no real benefit. Might as well have 4e players bite the bullet, but get a huge consolation prize (something no other edition really got before -- it's own spin-off line recognition).
Quote from: Opaopajr;522157See, this I DON'T get. Not to single you out, mind you. I know you mean well, and as a member of community I would too, olive branches, kumbaya, and all that. But as a business decision? It's like trying to roll up Sisyphus' boulder while shooting yourself in the foot.
As a business you want the old fans back (obviously your new ones weren't good enough to maintain status quo), and you want the new game K.I.S.S. for new fans -- especially kids -- to join. 4e fans already have 4e recently in print and an established DDI. Trying to appease everyone in the same product at this point is madness. Someone must lose out; so why not the "edition" that wasn't cutting it.
Given the brevity of 4E's lifespan and the storm of negative reaction to it, my opinion is this was the edition that wasn't cutting it. So my argument is built on the assumption that they stand to gain more if they reclaim the lost fanbase, than if they please the 4e fanbase (i also dont think 4e brought in as many new players as 3e brought in).
QuoteThe easiest business decision, considering I too believe 4e to be the most odd-one-out of the editions, is to relabel 4e as a Tactical edition, keeping it as its own (now 4+ years tested) tactical legacy with occasional product depending on fan popularity. Then run D&DNext RPG as closely to earlier editions as possible. This would be a compromise that 4e will get additional future product, but will not carry the flagship history as the RPG.
I think this may be an idea worth pursuing. Mixing the two camp's preferences in next could backfire. But seperating them out and offering two different products may be a good idea.
QuoteThis does two beneficial things. It greatly simplifies D&DNext RPG design, making it more KISS casual player friendly, and wholly discards "who wins, who loses" paranoiac bickering. And it spins off an already established Tactics line of the likes to compete with Games Workshop Gorka Morka/Necromunda Tactical games. It also sets them up where any Realm Expansion with Mass Combat in the RPG can relatively cross over into Warhammer-style army Tactical Miniatures. This positioning puts them into relative parity competition with GW's lines.
And if they're really smart they'd play up to their strengths of pre-fab My Precious Encounters (TM), a la Duplicate Bridge, and run tourney player score lists like the did for Encounters. I just don't see this as a hard decision business wise. Dragging it out like this just heightens sturm und drang, but to no real benefit. Might as well have 4e players bite the bullet, but get a huge consolation prize (something no other edition really got before -- it's own spin-off line recognition).
Again this could work, but their current plan seems to be "one edition to rule them all", which means there will be winners and losers (at least as far as the core system is concerned). But i do agree, flamewars probably dont help them much at this stage (but making your preferences isn't a bad thing).
There is also more going on here PR wise. They really upset lots of D&D fans over the past few years. WoTC went from being king of the mountain to one among many companies competing for the same player base. That is a pret staggering development. Personally i dont think the way to win this pr game is to attack 4e or 4e fans (makes about no more sense now than when they did it a few years ago to 3e fans). But acknowledging their failure to please the customers they had is important (because that is fundamentally what occured).
The problem WotC trying to suck cock on 3e players is that Paizo is already gobbling them ballsacks and all with Pathfinder. And the OSR is wanking off the grognards in the corner.
I don't know who WotC can please enough to have them completely drop their current RPG to join up with D&D Next.
I see the same problem in the Warhammer Fantasy arena. WFRP 2e didn't offer enough to many fans of 1e and 3e is too different for most 1e and 2e fans.
If WFRP 4e is just 2e redux, will the 2e fans really just rebuy from them? Maybe. Certainly the 3.5 fans bought 3.6 from Paizo in droves.
I don't envy WotC. Shoulda gotten that virtual tabletop running years ago.
Quote from: Spinachcat;522163The problem WotC trying to suck cock on 3e players is that Paizo is already gobbling them ballsacks and all with Pathfinder. And the OSR is wanking off the grognards in the corner.
This isn't about them Marching under the yoke or whispering sweet nothings to 3E/pathfinder players. But when you infuriate a customer base, it impacts the bottom line (as we are seeing) because you lose trust. To regain the faith of people who didn't transition to 4E (i actually haven't played pathfinder or much 3E since its release) they really do need to acknowledge their misteps. My attitude as a customer is why should I assume they can get 5E right if they dont seem to realize what they got wrong with 4E. They are asking to spend 90 bucks or so on the new edition (assuming the standard PHB, DMG, MM) so it is a purchase i will weigh more tham say a movie ticket or rpg system that comes in a single cheap book.
I will say i have seen some promising signs from them.
Quote89.>Every PHB will contain a random selection of 7 common classes, 3 uncommons, and 1 rare.
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?!?
Quote from: Novastar;522193Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?!?
It's a joke.
Quote from: Ladybird;522237It's a joke.
Thank all the gods in heaven.
Yeah, and this is the problem, there's a lot of selective quotation and a lot of misinformation in the form of commentary in this "leak". Its written from a fundamentally hostile bias.
RPGPundit
Not going to believe this until I hear it from someone who doesn't post on SA.
Quote from: CRKrueger;52205120 different conditions though? :eek: Christ.
My understanding is that they were doing away with 3/4e style stock "status effects", and merely going back to effects being unique to the ability that caused them, like in AD&D.
You know, this incident is a reason why I am waiting for the game to actually be printed and sold before judging it. As it stands right now, this is just advertising for 5E.
Quote from: jeff37923;522320You know, this incident is a reason why I am waiting for the game to actually be printed and sold before judging it. As it stands right now, this is just advertising for 5E.
That's quite the wise policy.
But this is also
such bad advertising. Tragically our (albeit my negative) interest in such PR actions doesn't really translate to word of mouth beyond our insular community of rpg enthusiasts. Like a moth to a flame I feel compelled to criticize their bad management of the situation.
I likely need a dose of Fukitol to watch dispassionately as another thing I used to enjoy implodes from incompetence.