Mike Mearls is now the new Manager of D&D R&D (http://twitter.com/mikemearls/status/14003843888), succeeding Andy Collins at the helm of the game's development.
James Wyatt becomes now D&D's Creative Manager (http://twitter.com/aquelajames/status/14001367888).
So business as usual (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vX07j9SDFcc) over at WotC?
...neither of which event changes a single iota the fact that D&D is fucked up beyond all fixing.
Quote from: thedungeondelver;380984...neither of which event changes a single iota the fact that D&D is fucked up beyond all fixing.
No it's not...4e is beyond fixing, however.
Well, maybe it's beyond fixing. I've thought about sitting down, identifying all the design flaws, making some fixes, and seeing if the next campaign runs better with a stack of houserules to patch over everything.
But when I try to list even a couple flaws, I try to follow up with patches...and it just seems overwhelming. But that just means I'm not capable of fixing it, it's possible someone that really cares could devote a few months to coming up with a patchwork system that might work.
Still, it would be fixing 4e, not D&D.
Step 1) Rip out the Powers section.
Step 2) Insert a Stunt section.
Step 3) Profit!
Quote from: Doom;380993No it's not...4e is beyond fixing, however.
Well, maybe it's beyond fixing. I've thought about sitting down, identifying all the design flaws, making some fixes, and seeing if the next campaign runs better with a stack of houserules to patch over everything.
But when I try to list even a couple flaws, I try to follow up with patches...and it just seems overwhelming. But that just means I'm not capable of fixing it, it's possible someone that really cares could devote a few months to coming up with a patchwork system that might work.
Still, it would be fixing 4e, not D&D.
This isn't Windows Vista....
Am I being unreasonable in expecting my RPG to work right out of the box without patching?
It's not like the other two popular alternatives, 3.5 or Exalted, are any better mechanically.
...3.5...The modifiers! The feats! The feats and modifiers that, in any sane game, would be skills! The...*Sob*...The Prestige Classes...
*Runs away screaming*
Quote from: Narf the Mouse;381004...3.5...The modifiers! The feats! The feats and modifiers that, in any sane game, would be skills! The...*Sob*...The Prestige Classes...
*Runs away screaming*
My sentiments precisely.
I can actually play 3e and its derivatives with little problem (though I confess to never having played a campaign that went beyond 7th level). Running it, though, is a nightmare for me.
Quote from: Peregrin;381003It's not like the other two popular alternatives, 3.5 or Exalted, are any better mechanically.
WTF??
Where does that crazy notion come from?
EXALTED isn't at all popular in the real world.
The only true alternatives I see
D&D players going to thaty don't like 4th edition is
PATHFINDER or continuing to play
3.5/OGL with third party and PAIZO 'generic'/systemless products that are still available and out there on shelves.
- Ed C.
Quote from: Lawbag;381002This isn't Windows Vista....
Am I being unreasonable in expecting my RPG to work right out of the box without patching?
My Vista runs awesome!
It's the only Microsoft OS I have ever had that did not require a re-install a few months after purchasing. I even gutted the worthless Vista security/nag system. All you have to do is keep it patched with the latest updates. You don't have to lift a finger. Once a month, the correct patches are automatically downloaded and installed, behind the scenes. You wouldn't even know it except that the OS automatically notifies you the next time the system is rebooted, detailing what was changed, and how to reverse it, if there is some kind of problem with the patch.
It's still fast too, even with 200+ Gb of additional installed software apps.
Oh, and, every software app that is even halfway decent and supported, gets regularly patched these days, with updates and improvements.
I'd really like to see them do that with RPGs... You know... Provide PDF updates for RPG books,
at no charge, as part of the original sale.
Quote from: The Butcher;381029My sentiments precisely.
I can actually play 3e and its derivatives with little problem (though I confess to never having played a campaign that went beyond 7th level). Running it, though, is a nightmare for me.
Weird. I never had a problem running 3.x personally. Don't get me wrong, I see how complex it can become and shit, but I ran games up to level 15ish repetitively and never experienced the huge mindstab other people are talking about. I was using lots of templated predefined creatures, stealing encounters left and right from this or that product, making my own as well, sure. A blend of all sorts of stuff really. I never had such a big problem with DMing 3.x. Honest.
Quote from: Doom;380993No it's not...4e is beyond fixing, however.
Well, maybe it's beyond fixing. I've thought about sitting down, identifying all the design flaws, making some fixes, and seeing if the next campaign runs better with a stack of houserules to patch over everything.
But when I try to list even a couple flaws, I try to follow up with patches...and it just seems overwhelming. But that just means I'm not capable of fixing it, it's possible someone that really cares could devote a few months to coming up with a patchwork system that might work.
Still, it would be fixing 4e, not D&D.
What most people want to do to "fix" D&D would make it not D&D. And don't start that "but if it's
called D&D by the parent company..." semantics BS, either.
I think we can all agree in general terms about what D&D is and is not.
Ask the folks at ICE or whomever was publishing Champions just what happens when you ditch the entire system to "reinvent" it (Hero Fuzion which was arguably the worst mainstream RPG ever)
Quote from: GameDaddy;381070My Vista runs awesome!
It's the only Microsoft OS I have ever had that did not require a re-install a few months after purchasing. I even gutted the worthless Vista security/nag system. All you have to do is keep it patched with the latest updates. You don't have to lift a finger. Once a month, the correct patches are automatically downloaded and installed, behind the scenes. You wouldn't even know it except that the OS automatically notifies you the next time the system is rebooted, detailing what was changed, and how to reverse it, if there is some kind of problem with the patch.
It's still fast too, even with 200+ Gb of additional installed software apps.
Oh, and, every software app that is even halfway decent and supported, gets regularly patched these days, with updates and improvements.
I didn't mind Vista so much, but I
luuuuuuuuuurve Windows7. But not to derail...!
QuoteI'd really like to see them do that with RPGs... You know... Provide PDF updates for RPG books, at no charge, as part of the original sale.
Wasn't that part and parcel of the aborted "Digital Initiative"?
Quote from: Koltar;381036WTF??
Where does that crazy notion come from?
EXALTED isn't at all popular in the real world.
The only true alternatives I see D&D players going to thaty don't like 4th edition is PATHFINDER or continuing to play 3.5/OGL with third party and PAIZO 'generic'/systemless products that are still available and out there on shelves.
- Ed C.
Exalted, the last time I checked, was right behind Vampire in terms of sales. I don't know anyone in my area that plays WoD actively, but that doesn't mean that somewhere, someone else doesn't. Most of the people in my area are too busy playing 4e.
There are people who claim Exalted sells well at their LGS and is actively played, just like there are people who claim there are people who play mostly 3.5 at their store. I see neither of those things, but that doesn't mean that there aren't places where 3.5 or Exalted are more popular. I'm not any more inclined to believe that Exalted isn't popular as I am that 3.5 is no longer played. We're talking about a tiny hobby with different cliques and variable levels of popularity for certain lines dependent upon region.
A little offtopic, though.
"Speech" from the Mearls on ENWorld (http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/276807-mearls-new-manager-d-d-2.html#post5183377):
Quote from: Mike MearlsIt's funny, because it almost feels like I've won some sort of election. I'm acutely aware of the pressure of the position, the expectations, and the current atmosphere among D&D fans. I think I had a few minutes of ecstasy. Since then, it's been a long week and a lot of thinking.
This is also a new position in the department. I'm taking on a lot of Bill Slavicsek's responsibilities. Bill's responsibilities have broadened to include more things like boardgames, novels, Heroscape, and so on. There's a lot more to D&D than just the RPG. The RPG is my corner to play in, while Bill looks over the entirety of D&D.
Believe me, I realize how difficult this job is. There are far more paths that lead to my screwing up than to my doing a good job. It's the geek equivalent of running a professional sports team. Do well, and everyone loves you. Screw up, and you'll never hear the end of it.
There's something pretty basic to the job, though. The gist of it, when you boil it all down, isn't rocket science.
Way back in the misty days of the 1980s, when I first discovered D&D, I thought Gary Gygax, Tom Moldvay, Doug Niles, Tracy Hickman, and the entire TSR crew were demigods. I loved poring over Dragon magazine, reading through adventures like Forgotten Temple of Tharizdun again and again, and studying the DMG. I devoured the Dragonlance novels. I fought battles across our basement floor with legions of BattleSystem counters. I filled the few, precious pieces of graph paper I had with dungeons. I designed classes and monsters. I loved D&D.
Then, something happened. TSR dropped Gary. Greyhawk was pushed aside. When 2e came out, I was torn. There were plenty of things to like about the game, but the attitude around it was off. It almost seemed like the people behind D&D didn't particularly care for the way I loved D&D. Maybe I was completely irrational, but the game felt changed in some insidious way.
As time went on, that feeling only increased. There were bright spots, most notably Dungeon magazine, but a lot of the stuff TSR put out didn't really speak to why I fell in love with D&D in the first place. I wanted to love D&D, but it wasn't really clear that the company behind D&D wanted to return that love.
I actually stopped playing D&D for a few years. I ran a grand total of one (terrible) campaign in college. I wasn't really sure that D&D was something I'd be involved with anymore. I bought a PS 1 and started playing lots of console games. I ended up sticking with RPGs, but I kept to games like Deadlands and Unknown Armies.
Then something pretty cool happened. In 1999, at my very first GenCon, I sat in the audience as Ryan Dancey announced 3rd edition. It was like a religious revival. One presentation and free t-shirt later, and I was a complete convert. My friend Nate called it a money grab, an appeal to munchkins. I think my exact response was, "**** you dude. This is the best thing that's ever happened to D&D."
For whatever reason, the entire presentation of 3e's announcement felt like it had been directed straight at me. I was a complete D&D goob again. Hallelujah, praise Gygax, my faith was restored.
A year later, my faith had been well-placed. 3e was awesome. D&D felt like the game I always had wanted it to be.
In looking back, I think that my job is fairly simple. I want people to love D&D. I want people to feel like the game is in good hands, that the hand at the tiller is confident, smart, and genuinely interested in the good of the game.
It's easy for me to look at this as the chance for me to make D&D into the game I always wanted it to be, but that would be disingenuous. It'd be the height of vanity, a monument to arrogance. D&D can't be a game that caters to a single person. It's bigger than that. It lives and dies by the collected spirit of every person that's ever picked up a d20, put pencil to graph paper, or leaned close to the table as the last character standing, clutching his last hit point, rolled his attack against the BBEG.
Of course, actually doing that isn't simple, but it helps to have a goal. I can't force anyone to love D&D. I can't legislate the game into popularity, or commission a survey that will tell me exactly what to do.
What I can do, though, is watch, listen, and learn. I can put everything I have into D&D and hope for the best. At the end of the day, you guys get to judge whether I'm doing a good or screwing up by buying or avoiding the products I help make. That gets back to the election thing. You guys didn't put me into office, but you sure as Hell get the chance to kick me out.
If you have any questions, the best way to get in touch is by dropping a line to my work email address (it's my first name dot last name at wizards dot com, or drop a line to dndinsider at wizards dot com). I can't answer everything, but I'll try. I'll also record answers to interesting questions on the podcast. I'm on vacation this week. I like reading web forums to see what's up, but they're not always the best place to answer questions.
Thanks!
Okay, that means 5th edition is being done with mearls at the helm and they start development NOW.
I can't help but hope the man's going to get an epiphany.
He's a good guy. When I read his post, I'm happy for him.
I just hope Mike knows the issues as acutely as he pretends he does in his speech.
He's been thinking hard. So there seems to be a possibility for a change in direction. We'll see.
Quote from: Settembrini;381097Okay, that means 5th edition is being done with mearls at the helm and they start development NOW.
Wonder how much "development" will be done, in the event that 5E is just a re-edited version of 4E + Essentials.
In the scenario that 5E is a radical departure from past editions, most likely it will take around three years from design stage to a printed 5E PHB. (That is if history is any guide, with 4E design allegedly started sometime in 2005).
After the 4E Essentials product line is finished with its ten titles (allegedly), wonder how many "new" 4E splatbooks afterward in mid-late 2011 will just be "trial balloons" like the Book of 9 Swords.
Quote from: dungeondelverI think we can all agree in general terms about what D&D is and is not.
No. No we can't.
[quote="Benoist]I can't help but hope the man's going to get an epiphany.
He's a good guy. When I read his post, I'm happy for him. I just hope Mike knows the issues as accutely as he pretends to in his speech. He's been thinking hard. So there seems to be a possibility of a change in direction. We'll see.[/quote]
Mike Mearls is, to put it bluntly: a fraud.
He talks about big design issues, but he doesn't ever
solve any of them. You remember how he made Iron Heroes, and his excuse for how the entire magic system didn't work at all was that it wasn't
quite finished yet? Ever notice that it
still isn't quite finished yet, because he never had any intention of making a functional magic system for that variant? He has been on point to make a new Skill Challenge system since June of 2008. His quest to figure out how to make Skill Challenges not suck is going to have its second birthday party in three weeks. Notice any progress on that front?
Every time he comes out with anything it's going to be a "culmination of years of thought" and every issue he can't be bothered to deal with is going to be an "issue for which there are no easy answers." Because that's the shit he always says. About everything. Because he is a
fraud, and that is what fraudsters
do.
The truth is that making a Skill Challenge system takes an afternoon and a solar powered calculator to get the numeric inputs right and possibly as much as two weeks of half-assed writing to get a publishable chapter showing it off. That's it. That Mike Mearls has produced at least half a dozen Skill Challenge test balloons without making anything that covers even half of its own design goals over a period of
two fucking years tells us everything we need to know about him. The only talent Mike Mearls has is convincing the angry mob that next time it'll be different because this time he has learned from his mistakes.
-Frank
Quote from: FrankTrollman;381112Mike Mearls is, to put it bluntly: a fraud.
He talks about big design issues, but he doesn't ever solve any of them. You remember how he made Iron Heroes, and his excuse for how the entire magic system didn't work at all was that it wasn't quite finished yet? Ever notice that it still isn't quite finished yet, because he never had any intention of making a functional magic system for that variant? He has been on point to make a new Skill Challenge system since June of 2008. His quest to figure out how to make Skill Challenges not suck is going to have its second birthday party in three weeks. Notice any progress on that front?
Every time he comes out with anything it's going to be a "culmination of years of thought" and every issue he can't be bothered to deal with is going to be an "issue for which there are no easy answers." Because that's the shit he always says. About everything. Because he is a fraud, and that is what fraudsters do.
The truth is that making a Skill Challenge system takes an afternoon and a solar powered calculator to get the numeric inputs right and possibly as much as two weeks of half-assed writing to get a publishable chapter showing it off. That's it. That Mike Mearls has produced at least half a dozen Skill Challenge test balloons without making anything that covers even half of its own design goals over a period of two fucking years tells us everything we need to know about him. The only talent Mike Mearls has is convincing the angry mob that next time it'll be different because this time he has learned from his mistakes.
At this point Mearls probably doesn't give a shit anymore. As long as there's enough "suckers" buying 4E books, he's secretly having the last laugh and a steady paycheck for several years. Similar to how politicians and economists have very little to zero responsibility for all the flawed or wrongheaded stuff they said and did, especially once they are voted out or fired.
EDIT: Mearls knows very well his number will be up in a few years, in the regular annual ritual of WotC layoffs. He's riding out the gravy train, until he's pushed out.
Quote from: Benoist;381102He's been thinking hard. So there seems to be a possibility for a change in direction. We'll see.
He spoke about designing for the masses. What makes you believe the masses want the game taken in a new direction?
Seanchai
Quote from: Seanchai;381119He spoke about designing for the masses. What makes you believe the masses want the game taken in a new direction?
Seanchai
The fact he talked about being "acutely aware of (...) the current atmosphere among D&D fans" and related this story about his views on 2nd ed at the time, and how 3rd ed "answered his prayers" afterwards. Maybe he's foreshadowing some changes. Maybe not.
Quote from: FrankTrollman;381112Mike Mearls is, to put it bluntly: a fraud.
He talks about big design issues, but he doesn't ever solve any of them. (...)
I see where you're coming from on this. All I can say is ... I hope our doubts are proven wrong.
The Trollmann speaks my mind. Literally.
Quote from: Benoist;381123The fact he talked about being "acutely aware of (...) the current atmosphere among D&D fans"...
Right. Do you really suppose when he says "D&D fans" that he means the disenfranchised players of OD&D, BD&D, 1e, 2e, and 3e? Because I doubt he does. It seems to me that he is saying that he understand what 4e fans want out of 4e.
Moreover, supposing he is talking about folks playing older editions, too, do you really think WotC will spend the time, energy, and money to pursue them?
Seanchai
I've read Mr Mearls' various commentaries on the intrewebs, and I exchanged posts with him a few times on forums, and all I can say is that guy has said very little with which I agree over the years. He always seems to be solving the wrong problem, from my perspective.
Quote from: Seanchai;381144Right. Do you really suppose when he says "D&D fans" that he means the disenfranchised players of OD&D, BD&D, 1e, 2e, and 3e? Because I doubt he does. It seems to me that he is saying that he understand what 4e fans want out of 4e.
Moreover, supposing he is talking about folks playing older editions, too, do you really think WotC will spend the time, energy, and money to pursue them?
Seanchai
Dude, I'm getting that's not your reading of it. I'm not even sure that'd be mine. But you trying to again create some sort of pointless nitpicking bullshit flamewar out of thin air... you can go fuck yourself with a piece of broken glass. That'll save us some time.
Quote from: thedungeondelver;381084Wasn't that part and parcel of the aborted "Digital Initiative"?
Shocker - a 4E hater with his facts wrong.
The Digital Initiative was never aborted. It includes such things as the online editions of Dragon and Dungeon, and the 4E tools like the Character Builder, Adventure Tools and the compendium.
Certain parts of the Digital Initiative were aborted, such as Gleemax, and some planned parts are vaporware at this point. But claiming the whole thing was aborted is just plain wrong.
As I understand it the DI includes more than D&D as well. It's a Wizards thing, not a D&D thing, so Magic and whatever else is included as well, not that I have any idea about what they do for other games online.
Man, that digital virtual game table sure looks awesome!
In your mind, that is. ;)
Quote from: Koltar;381036The only true alternatives I see D&D players going to thaty don't like 4th edition is PATHFINDER or continuing to play 3.5/OGL with third party and PAIZO 'generic'/systemless products that are still available and out there on shelves.
Presumably you're only talking about alternatives that are currently in print?
Quote from: Benoist;381149Man, that digital virtual game table sure looks awesome!
Nope, that's pure vaporware and the chances of ever actually seeing it are pretty close to zero, I think.
The Character Builder is a nice piece of work, though, and the Compendium is very useful at the table.
I'm guessing that's why TDD said the DI was aborted. Which is an overstatement, I agree.
Quote from: thedungeondelver;381083I think we can all agree in general terms about what D&D is and is not.
Probably the only thing I'll ever agree with Trollman on - there's no way you'll get agreement on this. Ask 100 people how they define D&D and you'll get at least 103 answers.
Quote from: Benoist;381152I'm guessing that's why TDD said the DI was aborted. Which is an overstatement, I agree.
Yes, he either doesn't know what the DI involves, or he's using the wrong term.
I dunno - If sales are going down, Hasbro has two options:
1) Fire and hire different people based on who they think might do better.
2) Drop the whole line.
Thing is, D&D is, what? 32 years old? That's a long and successful product history. Just a guess, but based on the shakeups, Hasbro might be trying Option 1.
The main difficulty is whether the guy in overall charge of WotC in Hasbro (Someone with a business degree could probably put it better) knows what to look for. Any smart business person knows that someone in charge needs to know what the product is about.
The question is, is such a person in charge right now?
Quote from: Narf the Mouse;381155The main difficulty is whether the guy in overall charge of WotC in Hasbro (Someone with a business degree could probably put it better) knows what to look for.
I can try. Wizards has its own CEO, so far as I know. Ultimately the CEO of Hasbro would be "in charge", since Wizards is a wholly-owned subsidiary, but Wizards' day-to-day operations would be run from within, not by Hasbro.
Who'd be in overall charge of WotC, of which D&D is one product. Hopefully, we see something better out of this. The Powers system, IMO, would make an awesome Stunt system (If codified into one).
Waitaminute. Skill Challenges still haven't been definitively fixed yet? I'm genuinely shocked by this. Where's the betting pool for whether Skill Challenges will appear in the Essentials line at all?
It seems obvious that through his stories of what he considered to be a big D&D fracture, (2e), he is addressing this one. He wants to be the next Dancy.
Since 4e was the cause of the fracture, short of killing off 4e, or having a dual D&D line--one 4e and one new for 5e, I doubt he can do it.
He can do things to pander, like release pdf's of older edition stuff again. That will help with the bad feelings, but won't get those gamers back. Again, 4e is the problem. Even the new reb box, with the retro-artwork and look and feel, isn't going to get that many people back.
At this point, even a revised GSL wouldn't help, even if they went OGL with it. Since 4e is so dependent on the digital stuff, unless you can add your product's stuff to the DDI, it won't help.
Bottom line, unless he makes a new version of the game that somewhat resembles D&D, which isn't dependent on DDI,and is OGL, he's fucked.
Quote from: GameDaddy;381070My Vista runs awesome!
It's the only Microsoft OS I have ever had that did not require a re-install a few months after purchasing. I even gutted the worthless Vista security/nag system. All you have to do is keep it patched with the latest updates. You don't have to lift a finger. Once a month, the correct patches are automatically downloaded and installed, behind the scenes. You wouldn't even know it except that the OS automatically notifies you the next time the system is rebooted, detailing what was changed, and how to reverse it, if there is some kind of problem with the patch.
It's still fast too, even with 200+ Gb of additional installed software apps.
Oh, and, every software app that is even halfway decent and supported, gets regularly patched these days, with updates and improvements.
That's just weird! Ubuntu has been doing all of that for about five years now. ;)
I'd run Linux, but I like playing computer games. :D ;)
Quote from: Settembrini;381097Okay, that means 5th edition is being done with mearls at the helm and they start development NOW.
That was my first thought too. Expect it in 2013.
We need to get a deadpool going with people placing their bets on who wotc will fire in December.
Quote from: Benoist;381094"Speech" from the Mearls on ENWorld (http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/276807-mearls-new-manager-d-d-2.html#post5183377):
What the hell?
Discounting all the babble, there's no informational content in the message at all, that I can see. Political noise about 'just being one of the people'.
It is weird in that it seems to lean pro-3e rather than pro-4e - there's no mention of 4e here. It could be that he's just trying to win over new converts and will say something completely opposite somewhere else to the current True Believers, rather than 5e, but I live in hope.
I'd concur with Frank's synopsis of Mearl's capacities, at least Bill S. being promoted onto some higher plane and Andy Collins leaving reduces the incompetence count slightly - even if we can expect 'legacy' rules from 4e, the Art department redesigning the gods and the legal team naming the monsters as per usual.
Also, I'm not sure why he feels the need to beat up on 2nd ed.??Dig
up, stupid!
Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;381177It is weird in that it seems to lean pro-3e rather than pro-4e - there's no mention of 4e here.
THAT is very interesting, isn't it?
Quote from: mhensley;381176We need to get a deadpool going with people placing their bets on who wotc will fire in December.
Who's still left there?
Hmmm ...
- Bill Slavicsek
- Mike Mearls
- James Wyatt
- Bruce Cordell
- Richard Baker
- Rodney Thompson
EDIT: Slavicsek will probably be the last guy to shut off the lights. With Mearls as the head of D&D game development, most likely Wyatt, Cordell, Baker, and Thompson are more expendable than Mearls. No idea who else is there, that isn't listed as contributors in splatbooks.
If WotC layoffs are partially based on rank and file employees having too high of a salary and/or somebody being at the company too long, one can do a deadpool based on that.
Richard Baker - around since 1991 (TSR)
Bruce Cordell - around since 1997 (WotC)
James Wyatt - around since 2000
Mike Mearls - around since 2005
Rodney Thompson - around since 2007
Quote from: Settembrini;381097Okay, that means 5th edition is being done with mearls at the helm and they start development NOW.
Yeah it was pretty transparent, wasn't it?
Quote from: Fifth Element;381148Shocker - a 4E hater with his facts wrong.
The Digital Initiative was never aborted. It includes such things as the online editions of Dragon and Dungeon, and the 4E tools like the Character Builder, Adventure Tools and the compendium.
Certain parts of the Digital Initiative were aborted, such as Gleemax, and some planned parts are vaporware at this point. But claiming the whole thing was aborted is just plain wrong.
As I understand it the DI includes more than D&D as well. It's a Wizards thing, not a D&D thing, so Magic and whatever else is included as well, not that I have any idea about what they do for other games online.
As Benoist said, how's that digital table top coming? How are those digital minis? Gleemax was stupid, and I hope the people responsible wind up like the storied M&M/Mars executive who turned down the E.T. The Extra-terrestrial license. Frankly during the 1990's I heard the same excuses proffered about OS/2, Taligent:Pink, and a host of other infamous IT disasters. There's a point at which you have to take a long hard look at the kit car you've tried to build with a bent frame and busted transaxle and call the scrapyard to come haul it off, and you can beat your gums all you want about it but the truth of the matter is, the whole thing is an embarrassing mess for WotC, one they'd be better off putting to sleep. You know it, I know it, they know it. As soon as someone at Hasbro can be found who actually
cares about their little tax write-off, they'll know, and that'll be the end of it.
I do not give a fig about Magic or any other hoo-ha - I'm a D&D player, thanks.
Quote from: thedungeondelver;381183...the same excuses proffered about OS/2...
Watch it, jackass, I liked OS/2, and it was a damn good operating system to boot.
;)
Quote from: StormBringer;381184Watch it, jackass, I liked OS/2, and it was a damn good operating system to boot.
;)
Yeah 'cause OS/2 warp is goaAHAHahaohohoh...sorry, I can't even finish that without breaking up. :D
NeXTStep lives forever. ;)
Quote from: thedungeondelver;381186Yeah 'cause OS/2 warp is goaAHAHahaohohoh...sorry, I can't even finish that without breaking up. :D
You didn't think it just sank beneath the waves, did you? :)
eComstation (http://www.ecomstation.com/)
MIT still supports it (http://www.mit.edu:8001/activities/os2/os2world.html)
International renown (http://www.os2world.com/)
It's not dead yet! (http://searchdatacenter.techtarget.com/news/article/0,289142,sid80_gci1508584,00.html)
Workbench FTA!
The Amiga was a multi-core computer. Now, decades later, we have...Multi-core CPUs.
My Time Machine wish sometimes is that Commodore had good management and better advertising. And backwards compatibility.
Quote from: Settembrini;381097Okay, that means 5th edition is being done with mearls at the helm and they start development NOW.
Sure, cause Rob Heinsoo was put in charge of 3E in order to kick off 4E development.
Maybe they'll send Bruce Cordell and Richard Baker packing in the upcoming WotC December 2010 layoffs, due to these two being around since the 1990's and most likely having too high of salary.
Quote from: Narf the Mouse;381191Workbench FTA!
The Amiga was a multi-core computer. Now, decades later, we have...Multi-core CPUs.
My Time Machine wish sometimes is that Commodore had good management and better advertising. And backwards compatibility.
Oh no you don't. Cramming an 040 and a busted PPC* in the same box don't make it multi-core! ;)
(*=no L2 cache, so Blizzard PPC boards were gimped, as were DCE boards)
Or were you referring to OCS/ECS/AGA chipsets?
Quote from: Fifth Element;381148Certain parts of the Digital Initiative were aborted, such as Gleemax, and some planned parts are vaporware at this point.
How long ago was 4e released? How long before that was it in development?
At some point, don't you find yourself wondering why a company with the resources of Whizbros can't seem to deliver on something so fundamental? When the industry leader vapourlocks the pooch so thoroughly, what does it say about their commitment to and leadership of that industry?
This isn't "Two Guys in Mom's Basement Gaming Co., Inc" . . . then again, maybe it is.
Quote from: StormBringer;381190You didn't think it just sank beneath the waves, did you? :)
eComstation (http://www.ecomstation.com/)
MIT still supports it (http://www.mit.edu:8001/activities/os2/os2world.html)
International renown (http://www.os2world.com/)
It's not dead yet! (http://searchdatacenter.techtarget.com/news/article/0,289142,sid80_gci1508584,00.html)
Oh I used to work for Star Systems, the biggest EFT on the east side of the Mississippi from 90 to about 01 until they were swallowed by Concord (then First Data after that). Most diebold ATMs ran OS/2 on a '386/16 with a meg of RAM and a 10mb (!) IDE HD until around 1998 or so when somebody figured out that a P166 board was actually cheaper to find and maintain and they switched to various flavors of Windows...
Your car has FORTH enabled chips in it; does that make FORTH the best language evar?! ;)
Quote from: The Shaman;381196How long ago was 4e released? How long before that was it in development?
At some point, don't you find yourself wondering why a company with the resources of Whizbros can't seem to deliver on something so fundamental? When the industry leader vapourlocks the pooch so thoroughly, what does it say about their commitment to and leadership of that industry?
This isn't "Two Guys in Mom's Basement Gaming Co., Inc" . . . then again, maybe it is.
The rpg industry's equivalent of "The Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight". :rolleyes:
Quote from: The Shaman;381196This isn't "Two Guys in Mom's Basement Gaming Co., Inc" . . . then again, maybe it is.
Dude, it's like there are communication breakdowns at every level in this company. Between Hazbros and Wizbros, between management and R&D, between guys within R&D, with the legal team, etc etc. It's like everyone's fighting a trench war between cubicles, sometimes. I'd love to know what the fuck is going on in Renton right now.
Wonder if anyone still runs a PDP-11. :p
At my previous job, some old timers were still using DEC VAX workstations running VMS. They even still had some VAX machines running some really old version of Berkeley BSD unix.
The VAX is a hunk of junk, even back in the mid-late 1990's.
Quote from: thedungeondelver;381195Oh no you don't. Cramming an 040 and a busted PPC* in the same box don't make it multi-core! ;)
(*=no L2 cache, so Blizzard PPC boards were gimped, as were DCE boards)
Or were you referring to OCS/ECS/AGA chipsets?
The later, AFAIK. The Amiga I use these days when I'm in a retro mood is called "WinUAE". ;) (And seriously, why does it take 50% of one 2.2 GHz to run a 8MHz (Total) Amiga 500? Cycle-exact mode and full sound, that is)
...And I need to find a good disk two of First Samurai.The disk one I have doesn't like the disk two I have.
Also, need to re-hook up my Catweasel. And stick my old comp on the display/input switcher...
Quote from: ggroy;381200Wonder if anyone still runs a PDP-11. :p
At my previous job, some old timers were still using DEC VAX workstations running VMS. They even still had some VAX machines running some really old version of Berkeley BSD unix.
The VAX is a hunk of junk, even back in the mid-late 1990's.
If you count emulators, I've got a Vic-20 still. Barely use it, because you really do need the keyboard support, but...
Quote from: Benoist;381199Dude, it's like there are communication breakdowns at every level in this company. Between Hazbros and Wizbros, between management and R&D, between guys within R&D, with the legal team, etc etc. It's like everyone's fighting a trench war between cubicles, sometimes. I'd love to know what the fuck is going on in Renton right now.
Something that resembles Dilbert meets The Knights of the Dinner Table. :D
Quote from: Narf the Mouse;381202If you count emulators, I've got a Vic-20 still. Barely use it, because you really do need the keyboard support, but...
My old Vic-20 is in the closet collecting dust. Also a bunch of old workstations I never use these days, like an old Sun Sparcstation 10.
Old junk I should chuck out someday.
Quote from: ggroy;381203Something that resembles Dilbert meets The Knights of the Dinner Table. :D
...I just got a flash of cubicle knights fighting in a melee, including leaping off the top of a cubicle wall.
...Someone make an RPG! Cubicle Knights: Bloody Capitalism!...Hmm..."For Copyrights and Honour!"
Quote from: ggroy;381204My old Vic-20 is in the closet collecting dust. Also a bunch of old workstations I never use these days, like an old Sun Sparcstation 10.
Old junk I should chuck out someday.
My first programs were on the Vic-20 (A real one). Tape drives are awesome and nothing so far has replaced them, for one simple reason: Sticking them in a tape player and listening to the code.
Quote from: Narf the Mouse;381206My first programs were on the Vic-20 (A real one). Tape drives are awesome and nothing so far has replaced them, for one simple reason: Sticking them in a tape player and listening to the code.
Most of my first programs on the vic-20 were kinda pitiful. I was trying to figure out how to write video games at the time. Ended up running out of memory constantly. Later picked up a 16k ram expansion card, which helped quite a lot at the time.
Quote from: thedungeondelver;381197Your car has FORTH enabled chips in it; does that make FORTH the best language evar?! ;)
Only when COBOL isn't available. :D
Z80 assembly language hell?
6502 assembly language hell?
Quote from: ggroy;381204My old Vic-20 is in the closet collecting dust. Also a bunch of old workstations I never use these days, like an old Sun Sparcstation 10.
Old junk I should chuck out someday.
Donate it (http://www.computerhistory.org/)
Quote from: StormBringer;381210Donate it (http://www.computerhistory.org/)
Such places aren't so interested in old sun sparcstations.
Quote from: ggroy;381207Most of my first programs on the vic-20 were kinda pitiful. I was trying to figure out how to write video games at the time. Ended up running out of memory constantly. Later picked up a 16k ram expansion card, which helped quite a lot at the time.
Heh. I was 9? years old - I wasn't exactly writing professional software. In fact, I think only a couple got finished. Long-lost to memory, though.
Edit: Not counting the stuff I got out of magazines and program books, of course.
(Back to the OP).
If 5E D&D ends up being a re-edited version of 4E + Essentials with some modifications, a small design team of Mearls, Wyatt, and Thompson wouldn't be completely out of the question. Probably take a year or so to completely finish and edit such a thing.
No idea what a Mearls, Wyatt, and Thompson team would do for a 5E that is a radical departure from previous editions of D&D. One possibility is recycling the Star Wars SAGA mechanics system into a fantasy game and calling it "5E D&D".
Quote from: Narf the Mouse;381213Heh. I was 9? years old - I wasn't exactly writing professional software. In fact, I think only a couple got finished. Long-lost to memory, though.
Edit: Not counting the stuff I got out of magazines and program books, of course.
Mine were quite primitive at the time. The most I figure out at the time, was moving a dot around on the screen using a joystick. I didn't get much further than that.
Well, we'll have to time-travel into the future to see, at the standard 1/1 second rate.
Quote from: ggroy;381216Mine were quite primitive at the time. The most I figure out at the time, was moving a dot around on the screen using a joystick. I didn't get much further than that.
I'm not a brilliant programmer; I just bash my brain against problems until I understand them.
Writing primitive video game code on a vic-20 in the early 1980's, while listening to Iron Maiden or Judas Priest. :)
Quote from: ggroy;381219Writing primitive video game code on a vic-20 in the early 1980's, while listening to Iron Maiden or Judas Priest. :)
Good man, listening to IM.
Live After Death?
Quote from: Benoist;381220Good man, listening to IM. Live After Death?
In those days, I was listening to Killers and The Number of the Beast a lot. Live After Death wasn't released at the time.
For Judas Priest, at the time I was listening to Screaming For Vengeance, Unleashed in the East, and Sin After Sin.
Quote from: ggroy;381221In those days, I was listening to Killers and The Number of the Beast a lot. Live After Death wasn't released at the time.
Hadn't noticed the years bracket.
LAD is one of my favorite Cthulhu "mise en place", ambiance music. For brainstorming.
...Every modern programming language should include a "beep" command.
Quote from: Benoist;381225Hadn't noticed the years bracket.
LAD is one of my favorite Cthulhu "mise en place", ambiance music.
Years later I was listening to Live After Death a lot. Even had the video of it. Watched it a lot at the time over and over.
Quote from: ggroy;381224For Judas Priest, at the time I was listening to Screaming For Vengeance, Unleashed in the East, and Sin After Sin.
Thumbs up. :)
Days of youthful silliness.
At the time I use to also waste a lot of time playing guitar. Stuff like spending an entire day trying to figure out how to play some Van Halen or Ozzy Osbourne guitar solos and rhythm guitar parts from a single song.
EDIT: Iron Maiden and Judas Priest were a lot easier to figure out on the guitar in comparison.
Quote from: thedungeondelver;381183As Benoist said, how's that digital table top coming? How are those digital minis? ...
I do not give a fig about Magic or any other hoo-ha - I'm a D&D player, thanks.
Dude, just admit you were wrong and move on. The DI was not aborted (you know what aborted means, right?); parts of what was originally planned have been scrapped, some officially and some unofficially.
You can bring up any example that you like of things they didn't do - but the existence of the Character Builder, the Adventure Tools, the Compendium, or Dragon and Dungeon, all prove you wrong.
There's no arguing they didn't deliver on everything they said they would. But that's not what you said.
Quote from: Narf the Mouse;381162Who'd be in overall charge of WotC, of which D&D is one product. Hopefully, we see something better out of this. The Powers system, IMO, would make an awesome Stunt system (If codified into one).
Technically, Greg Leeds (he's still CEO, right?) is ultimately in charge of all aspects of WotC. How deeply he gets involved in any one product line is anyone's guess, but it's probably not very deep. There's too much company for that, and that's what the brand managers are for anyway.
As I understand it, Mearls' new position is technically a new position, and he will have more authority over the direction of the game than Collins did. He's taking over some of Slaviscek's old responsibilities, who's moving up the line a bit.
Anyone know an RPG as complex as D&D 3.xE or 4E that is totally balanced and suffers from no glitches or inconsistencies?
Seriously, these are RPGs. They're not computer games. They're supposed to be played with a human interface - a DM - who can adjudicate, rule, modify, and adapt. Anyone expecting an RPG system to be as mechanically complex as D&D has become and perfectly balanced is dreaming.
Fuck, millions of people played AD&D and it was shakey as hell. Since when did comprehensive mechanical perfection become the be all and end all of RPGs?
Not being able to attain perfect balance doesn't me striving to make something easier to handle or adjudicate isn't a worthy design goal.
If we were talking about a more, well, relatively rules-lite RPG like AD&D that assumes a competent GM, then yeah, you can definitely wing things as necessary to make it all gel. But the more crunch you add, the more difficult that becomes without the designers stepping in to make sure shit doesn't break.
WotC, from day one, has striven to make D&D more mechanically driven, rather than a set of guidelines for a competent GM to utilize. This has both good and bad effects, but ultimately gives you a different type of game that's nothing like the original.
Quote from: Peregrin;381234Not being able to attain perfect balance doesn't me striving to make something easier to handle or adjudicate isn't a worthy design goal.
If we were talking about a more, well, relatively rules-lite RPG like AD&D that assumes a competent GM, then yeah, you can definitely wing things as necessary to make it all gel. But the more crunch you add, the more difficult that becomes without the designers stepping in to make sure shit doesn't break.
These two paragraphs IMO show what is so fucked up with this notion of absolute rules balance as a design goal. Truth is, it doesn't make the game any easier to run, it makes it harder on the GM to come up with consistent stuff with the rules set, stops him from being spontaneous and adaptable, stops him from ever daring to imagine outside the box the rules represent.
Quote from: Peregrin;381234WotC, from day one, has striven to make D&D more mechanically driven, rather than a set of guidelines for a competent GM to utilize. This has both good and bad effects, but ultimately gives you a different type of game that's nothing like the original.
That's what I think is deeply wrong with the current game's design. One should strive to build a game that inspires people to become great GMs overtime, with the right start, the right input, advice, evolution, and ultimately, the right thirst for more. This whole design philosophy of cattering to losers who should never have been GMs in the first place is ridiculous, and just ends up dragging the whole game down the trash. This lowest common denominator politically correct bullshit needs to die.
I don't think it's so much the notion of balance that undermines the old GM-game relationship, but the notion that you can somehow replace creativity with pre-packaged, ready-to-use bits. Striving for mechanical balance can lend itself to that, but it doesn't have to.
Quote from: Peregrin;381240I don't think it's so much the notion of balance that undermines the old GM-game relationship, but the notion that you can somehow replace creativity with pre-packaged, ready-to-use bits.
Which serves marketing targets well, since the next errata, the next supplement, the next fix provided by the game company is what the costumers wait for compulsively. Rules balance in this sense serves the marketing interests of the company as well, in the sense that the rules become the game, and the game, the rules.
Depends on how the rules are presented.
You can make a game that's bound by the rules which provides enough flexibility and guidelines to be infinitely useful, and if you market it that way, there's not much of a reason for people to keep investing in supplements unless you offer something substantial in terms of quality.
If you make a game that does not give you the foundations to create your own game, and compartmentalizes everything the way that WotC or White-Wolf tend to do, then it becomes more of an issue because you're not providing GMs explicit guidelines for creating things on their own, and so people have to best-guess or reverse-engineer the system to see how to make their own bits that will work well with the system.
Toolkits vs Consumer product. Legos vs. Action figures and accessories.
Quote from: Peregrin;381240I don't think it's so much the notion of balance that undermines the old GM-game relationship, but the notion that you can somehow replace creativity with pre-packaged, ready-to-use bits. Striving for mechanical balance can lend itself to that, but it doesn't have to.
Which is why Hero System is awesome. Also, it's one of the two most min-maxable games I've ever seen, the other being 3E. And 3E is harder to min-max.
I can make a 25-Point Standard Normal (Average Joe) who can take over the world (mind control), in less than a day, while sitting on a beach and sipping margaritas.
But you know what? I almost never see those types of characters. Because, aside from balancing each power against itself, the rules assume (IMO) that most people aren't jerks. And players, like the non-jerks most people are, will produce good characters, most of the time.
That's because the "Bad players" are almost always one (Maybe two) guys in the group. Ever notice that about the "Bad player" stories?
Lastly - Hero System makes it easier for the GM, in some ways. I don't have to worry if Ultimate Power of Light can be used to make complex illusions - Either the character bought Images (Sight Group/Normal Sight), or they didn't. And, if they didn't buy Images (Given things like Multi-powers), then they probably didn't want it that much anyway.
If they did buy, say, Images (Sight Group), then everything the player or I need to know about what it can do is *Right there on the character sheet*. Providing I know how Images works (Which isn't very hard to understand), he can go and make whatever colourful, illusionary display he wants - And I just interpret how it affects other characters based on common sense. Images has Smell/Taste group? Then an illusionary dinner would smell and taste good. Most of the general text under the Images Power in 6e1 is advice. Exactly what a newbie needs.
Quote from: Benoist;381238These two paragraphs IMO show what is so fucked up with this notion of absolute rules balance as a design goal. Truth is, it doesn't make the game any easier to run, it makes it harder on the GM to come up with consistent stuff with the rules set, stops him from being spontaneous and adaptable, stops him from ever daring to imagine outside the box the rules represent.
Bull. There's no 'truth' here, only opinion. I find 4E to be one of the easiest editions of the game to run. To me, 3E is the only edition that made being spontaneous and adaptable difficult. Given that 4E explicitly provides advice for how to deal with things not specifically covered by the rules, your last comment seems especially specious.
Are your comments here based on your actual experience in running 4E, or are they based on something else? I ask because they don't match my experience at all.
The edge cuts both ways. If you can't handle DMing 4E, perhaps that's because you have no business being a DM? (I would never argue that, of course, because that's a ridiculous thing to say.)
Quote from: Settembrini;381097Okay, that means 5th edition is being done with mearls at the helm and they start development NOW.
It could have only been clearer if he pandered to me by name.
Quote from: FrankTrollman;381112Mike Mearls is, to put it bluntly: a fraud.
He talks about big design issues, but he doesn't ever solve any of them.
While I'm pretty down on most of Mike's work with WotC, I think your reading of his skills as a designer is really off-base. I agree that all the failures you list are in fact failures, but I don't think they are due to either laziness or incompetence. Calling him a fraud seems ridiculous.
Mike's body of d20 work is pretty staggering in both scope and inventiveness. During the d20 boom Mike was one of the hardest working freelancers out there, and got there not just by churning out volumes of product but in actually thinking of design as a craft and continually trying to improve on it. The name "Mike Mearls" on a d20 book almost always indicated that it would be worth checking out.
The problem with Mike's work, though, seemed to be a frequent lack of focus. The final products might have had some brilliant insights into the workings of the d20 system, but were often uneven or, at worst, unfinished. (See, for example, the Monster's Handbook, or, as you cited, Iron Heroes.) Even his failures were usually interesting to read.
I don't think that this inconsistency was due to laziness, but because he was always spinning way too many plates at once. I had hoped that once he stopped freelancing and started working exclusively for one company that his work would tighten up, but I don't think it has. He still seems to be a bit of a magpie, darting from project to project.
I don't know why he hasn't fixed skill challenges in 4e to your liking: I honestly haven't followed the issue very closely. But I do think it is an enormous leap to jump from "skill challenges are still broken" to "Mike Mearls is a fraud."
Quote from: Fifth Element;381271Bull. There's no 'truth' here, only opinion. I find 4E to be one of the easiest editions of the game to run. To me, 3E is the only edition that made being spontaneous and adaptable difficult.
Geez, I must have imagined seeing all these threads about 4e's grind all over gaming message boards. Or the zillions of threads masturbating on this or that element of the game being "overpowered"/"underpowered". Or the quasi obsession to stick to the rules and treat them are the final arbiter of the going-ons at a game table.
I don't run 4e (though I do have the core books and did read them).
I have, however, run 3e, which I find guilty of this obsession with rules balance, and all the other fucked up concepts tied to it, like rules bloat, combat grind, dissociated mechanics, etc etc. In that regard, 4e is 3e's direct autistic child on fucking steroids.
Now you like your 4e, it's the bee's knees, cool for you. Really. You found your game: awesome! I also happen to know about the Rouseketeers and all that 4venger bullshit you're constantly pulling over at ENWorld, so excuse me if I'm not trusting your feedback to be entirely objective nor accurate either.
That's a shocker! I mean? We have different opinions on 4e! Wow. Who would have guessed, right? That's the beauty of it though: I don't have to agree with you, and we can each wish for the game to go in different directions. That's cool. Don't ask me to agree with you that 4e is the bee's knees though. That's not going to happen. ;)
Quote from: Garnfellow;381278Mike's body of d20 work is pretty staggering in both scope and inventiveness.
No. It's not.
Mike Mearls' work is staggering on just one axis: Ambition. He
promises titanic things for every single project. Mike Mearls is
going to fix Skill Challenges. Mike Mearls is
going to fix Magic Items. Mike Mearls is
going to fix Multiclassing. But he never ever
does.
Let's get down to brass tacks. Stop talking about what Mike Mearls has "worked on" and start talking about what Mike Mearls has
completed. You got anything? I don't. I've been following his work for
years and I can't name a single project that he has actually seen through to genuine completion.
Ever notice how when he talks about the "cool things" he is doing in the games he runs, he is never using any of the rules he released last month? It's always the cool things he is going to release next month. The ones that will fix the problems with last month's work - the ones he hasn't been paid for yet. You could be generous to him and say that it's simply because he has the attention span of a cocker spaniel. But you know what? I don't buy it. The man writes twenty thousand words a
week. There's noway in hell you can convince me that he is seriously
incapable of working on a project until it is finished - he just doesn't want to. Because starting new projects pays more money.
QuoteThe problem with Mike's work, though, seemed to be a frequent lack of focus. The final products might have had some brilliant insights into the workings of the d20 system, but were often uneven or, at worst, unfinished. (See, for example, the Monster's Handbook, or, as you cited, Iron Heroes.) Even his failures were usually interesting to read.
I'm not saying he doesn't have talent. As a writer, I
respect the ability to write twenty thousand words a week, every week, for six years straight. Even armed as he was with a developer and an editor, I wouldn't be able to keep that up. But the thing is that
all of his work has a hollow center. None of it has
ever been stress tested or fitted together into a coherent whole. It's all just some flashy words that are intended to dazzle the viewer long enough to give Mike Mearls some money so he can eat food until he does it again next month.
Because Mike Mearls is not a game designer. He is a con artist.
QuoteI don't know why he hasn't fixed skill challenges in 4e to your liking: I honestly haven't followed the issue very closely. But I do think it is an enormous leap to jump from "skill challenges are still broken" to "Mike Mearls is a fraud."
It's the way he did it. Or rather, the way he
didn't do it. It would be one thing to simply crank away on numbers and rewrites and have it stay a muddled mess. That's simple incompetence. We see a lot of that in the RPG industry. But he's been coming out with flashy new vaporware every two months for 2
years. Each one full of buzz words like "innovation" and "cooperativity" ad yet - each one a brand new pile of fail. Which he tacitly admits by making a whole new one in two months. Every month he's either unveiling the new system or previewing the next one. He's never ever
fixing the last one.
Which is the actions of a Con Artist. Exactly the actions of a Con Artist. I'm really shocked that there are so many people in RPGs that haven't figured him out yet. Fool Me Twice and all that.
But then, WotC says that 1 D&D player in 16 actually plays 4e D&D. So maybe he really is down to just the some of the people you can fool all of the time.
-Frank
Quote from: FrankTrollman;381300But then, WotC says that 1 D&D player in 16 actually plays 4e D&D. So maybe he really is down to just the some of the people you can fool all of the time.
Specifically, they said there are 24 million lapsed players, and 1.5 million active players. If someone didn't know exactly what they said, your phrasing could give the impression that WotC said 15 out of 16 D&D players are currently playing Pathfinder, 3.X, and various old school games. I'm sure you wouldn't want to give that impression, though.
Quote from: Benoist;381298Geez, I must have imagined seeing all these threads about 4e's grind all over gaming message boards.
Do you read the threads? Specifically the many DMs who either (A) don't find grind in their games, or (B) provide solutions to it if it is a problem?
I see threads talking about how terrible 2E or 1E is in some way or another. Does that make that true as well?
Quote from: Benoist;381298Or the zillions of threads masturbating on this or that element of the game being "overpowered"/"underpowered". Or the quasi obsession to stick to the rules and treat them are the final arbiter of the going-ons at a game table.
Some people are rules lawyers. Always have been, always will be. Doesn't matter what system they're using. Recall Dragon forum letters in the 1E days about people complaining about rules lawyers. It's not the system, it's the players.
Quote from: Benoist;381298I don't run 4e (though I do have the core books and did read them).
So shut the fuck up about the game if you've never played the game. What do you know about DMing the game if you've never DMed it? Imagine if someone came on this board and started spouting stupid shit about OD&D, and you find he's never even played the game. How would you react to that?
You're spouting stupid shit about a game you don't really know anything about.
Quote from: Benoist;381298I also happen to know about the Rouseketeers and all that 4venger bullshit you're constantly pulling over at ENWorld, so excuse me if I'm not trusting your feedback to be entirely objective nor accurate either.
If you actually read the threads, Odhanan, you'll find my "4venger bullshit" consists of "4e doesn't actually rape puppies". I don't promote 4E ahead of other editions; since you frequent ENWorld, you should know that all editions of D&D are
awesome! I do defend 4E against bullshit arguments, because like all other editions of D&D, I enjoy playing it.
I enjoy 4E as much as I enjoy 3E, and 2E before that, and 1E before that, and BECM before that. If that makes my opinion somehow less trustworthy, then I guess there's nothing I can do about that.
(Oh, and the Rouseketeers? That's just some silly shit I did. It doesn't actually mean anything. Not everything is serious business.)
Quote from: Benoist;381298That's a shocker! I mean? We have different opinions on 4e!
Yes we do! But when you proclaim your opinion as "truth" (your word), then you should expect to get called on your bullshit.
Quote from: Haffrung;381233Anyone know an RPG as complex as D&D 3.xE or 4E that is totally balanced and suffers from no glitches or inconsistencies?
Absolutely!
Dungeons and Dragons, or 4e, are both so massive and cover such scope (not just a world, after all, but an infinite number of them) that of course there are glitches.
That said, being assured that you should toss all your D&D books and buy
4e because it doesn't have any of the same problems, was a bit annoying to some.
Quote from: Fifth Element;381311So shut the fuck up about the game if you've never played the game. What do you know about DMing the game if you've never DMed it? Imagine if someone came on this board and started spouting stupid shit about OD&D, and you find he's never even played the game. How would you react to that?
It happens
all the fucking time.
I can give you a quick run-down of the GMing for just about any game out there with a moderately thorough read through of the rules. Much as I don't have to stick my hand in a fire to know it will be really painful, there are certain things that can be judged without direct experience of them. Otherwise, there would be no transmission of knowledge. While
you might not be capable of doing so, it doesn't follow that no one is.
Plus, as was seen early on, 'play the game' quickly morphs into 'play several sessions of the game', which then turns into 'play a whole campaign to 30th' and then into 'play several campaigns to 30th'. Your argument is but the first step in a not-very-elaborate nor subtle goal post shifting routine that is really fucking tired.
QuoteYou're spouting stupid shit about a game you don't really know anything about.
Physician, heal thyself. As I recall, you seem to think that skill challenges work just fine. With all that experience playing 4e, it would be odd to still believe there isn't a problem with skill challenges. Even after it was shown mathematically, and three (four? five?) separate erratas released to fix the problems.
In fact, it seems like most of the 4e Zealots on any board keep spouting stupid shit about a game they don't seem to know much about.
Quote from: StormBringer;381316It happens all the fucking time.
Yes, and those who do it get shouted down quickly. As they probably should.
Quote from: StormBringer;381316Plus, as was seen early on, 'play the game' quickly morphs into 'play several sessions of the game', which then turns into 'play a whole campaign to 30th' and then into 'play several campaigns to 30th'. Your argument is but the first step in a not-very-elaborate nor subtle goal post shifting routine that is really fucking tired.
It doesn't morph to that. It
starts out as "play it a reasonable amount" (or at least, it should). You will see those who defend their positions saying "I played a 2-hour delve and there was no roleplaying so 4E doesn't allow roleplaying" and stupid shit like that. No, you don't have to play a full campaign. A few sessions would be enough for most, I would think.
Quote from: StormBringer;381316Physician, heal thyself. As I recall, you seem to think that skill challenges work just fine. With all that experience playing 4e, it would be odd to still believe there isn't a problem with skill challenges.
No, there's no inherent problem with skill challenges as a concept...it depends on how you use them. I don't necessarily use them as written, just as I don't use all monsters as written or what have you. I don't care if some people think "the math" is "broken" - that sounds like CharOp bullshit to me.
Isn't it something like the masturbation that Odhanan complained about - tables and calculations "proving" the math is "wrong".
Quote from: Fifth Element;381317I don't care if some people think "the math" is "broken" - that sounds like CharOp bullshit to me.
Please stop talking.
We are on a fucking message board. We are not sitting at each other's tables, and likely never will. We
can't tell if any particular in-play experience was caused by luck, irrelevant contingencies, or what.
All we can tell is what the math tells us would happen if you summed up
all the games.
So if you say that you don't care about the
math, you're saying that you don't care about anything that any of us could actually say with confidence about
anything. The math is the only shared language we have.
You could sit down at a table where the Monk always rolls twenties and accomplishes far more in every aspect of the game than any other player. Or a game where the DM decided that it would be totally awesome to give the Monk an amulet that gave him tiger powers that were far larger than those granted by any other class or equipment. But neither of those events say anything
at all about the actual design of the Monk class. For that we have to bust open,
the math.
I trust someone's word who has never picked up a d20 and rolled it in a 4e game session who can and does do
math over the word of someone who has logged four hundred hours of gaming sessions. Because 400 hours of gaming sessions is still just an anecdote. Someone who knows their way around 5% increments can model 4000 thousand hours in a few seconds.
You sir just gave the show away: you don't have a clue about what you are talking about, and steadfastly refuse to get one.
-Frank
Quote from: FrankTrollman;381323I trust someone's word who has never picked up a d20 and rolled it in a 4e game session who can and does do math over the word of someone who has logged four hundred hours of gaming sessions. Because 400 hours of gaming sessions is still just an anecdote. Someone who knows their way around 5% increments can model 4000 thousand hours in a few seconds.
That should settle it, then. Hey, can you show me the mathematical model for skill challenges as set forth in the DMG 2? Including all the options? You were pretty sure that it didn't fix anything, so I assume you've actually done all this modeling.
Quote from: Fifth Element;381311Do you read the threads? Specifically the many DMs who either (A) don't find grind in their games, or (B) provide solutions to it if it is a problem?
I see some of those. I see a damn lot more of dogpiling from rabid 4e fans on any possible criticism under the Sun, however.
Quote from: Fifth Element;381311I see threads talking about how terrible 2E or 1E is in some way or another. Does that make that true as well?
Well, that does mean these people found something not fulfilling with these games, obviously. After, we're all free to choose whether we think these criticisms are valid or not.
Quote from: Fifth Element;381311Some people are rules lawyers. Always have been, always will be. Doesn't matter what system they're using. Recall Dragon forum letters in the 1E days about people complaining about rules lawyers. It's not the system, it's the players.
Up until 3rd edition, I would have agreed with you. Since 3rd edition, particularly late in 3rd ed's cycle, I have to disagree with you, because the current design
specifically catters to these players now. It's encouraged by the game's very design, its designers' mentality, and the company's marketing.
Quote from: Fifth Element;381311So shut the fuck up about the game if you've never played the game. What do you know about DMing the game if you've never DMed it? Imagine if someone came on this board and started spouting stupid shit about OD&D, and you find he's never even played the game. How would you react to that?
It happens
all the time. Usually, I read the complaint or review, and decide for myself whether I think the criticism is valid or not. You do the same. Everything's fine.
Quote from: Fifth Element;381311You're spouting stupid shit about a game you don't really know anything about.
I'll certainly give you that I don't know the intricacies of the game the way people who've run the game for some time do.
Quote from: Fifth Element;381311If you actually read the threads, Odhanan, you'll find my "4venger bullshit" consists of "4e doesn't actually rape puppies". I don't promote 4E ahead of other editions; since you frequent ENWorld, you should know that all editions of D&D are awesome! I do defend 4E against bullshit arguments, because like all other editions of D&D, I enjoy playing it.
I enjoy 4E as much as I enjoy 3E, and 2E before that, and 1E before that, and BECM before that. If that makes my opinion somehow less trustworthy, then I guess there's nothing I can do about that.
(Oh, and the Rouseketeers? That's just some silly shit I did. It doesn't actually mean anything. Not everything is serious business.)
Yes we do! But when you proclaim your opinion as "truth" (your word), then you should expect to get called on your bullshit.
Yeah, well. The rest of your post there is basically you getting your panties in a knot over people who don't like your game. It's fine. Just don't expect me to agree with you or to support you when you get all passive aggressive, or rabid asshat, on people who happen to criticize the Game Which Can Do No Wrong (tm).
As for the politically correct bullshit, "all editions are great, yay!", I'll pass, thanks.
Oh, and BTW? In every joke there's a grain of truth. Your Rouseketeer shit? Actually a symptom of your fanboyism. As simple as that.
Quote from: FrankTrollman;381323We are on a fucking message board. We are not sitting at each other's tables, and likely never will. We can't tell if any particular in-play experience was caused by luck, irrelevant contingencies, or what.
I thought we could tell that just by reading through the books?
Quote from: FrankTrollman;381323So if you say that you don't care about the math, you're saying that you don't care about anything that any of us could actually say with confidence about anything. The math is the only shared language we have.
This sounds like more masturbation. It's hilarious that you're telling this to a professional accountant, but of course D&D is just a fucking game.
One of the biggest complaints about 4E's design is its apparent obsession with mathematical balance. I think obsession is an overstatement, but I also think that you can't judge an RPG based on formulas.
If skill challenges don't work for you, that's fine. I know they don't work for a lot of people. But I'm not going to let a few easily-adjusted numbers get in the way of my fun.
Quote from: Benoist;381327I see some of those. I see a damn lot more of dogpiling from rabid 4e fans on any possible criticism under the Sun, however.
That's probably true, at ENWorld anyway, because there are more 4E fans there. More 4E fans = more 4E fanboys.
Quote from: Benoist;381327Well, that does mean these people found something not fulfilling with these games, obviously. After, we're all free to choose whether we think these criticisms are valid or not.
Indeed. It doesn't make their criticisms "truth", though.
Quote from: Benoist;381327Up until 3rd edition, I would have agreed with you. Since 3rd edition, particularly late in 3rd ed's cycle, I have to disagree with you, because the current design specifically catters to these players now. It's encouraged by the game's very design, its designers' mentality, and the company's marketing.
I'd probably agree with that. It is a matter of degree, and it's probably more prevalent than it was before. Or perhaps it's just the greater ability to communicate we have nowadays?
Quote from: Benoist;381327Yeah, well. The rest of your post there is basically you getting your panties in a knot over people who don't like your game.
Dude, it's not "my game". You can keep reading that all you like, but it's just not there.
Do you want to have a discussion about the problems I have with 4E? I'll gladly do so, if I can get it without it devolving into edition war crap.
Quote from: Benoist;381327As for the politically correct bullshit, "all editions are great, yay!", I'll pass, thanks.
That's not PC, that's my opinion. You're free to disagree, and I know that you don't enjoy more recent editions. But I did mention it (since I know you hang out at ENWorld) to throw light on your ridiculous claim of 4E fanboyism.
Quote from: Fifth Element;381329If skill challenges don't work for you, that's fine. I know they don't work for a lot of people. But I'm not going to let a few easily-adjusted numbers get in the way of my fun.
Whoa, there, Chester. You are saying there is no problem with skill challenges, and at the same time you admit they don't work for many, so your solution is to not use this perfectly functional system as is, but to tweak it so it actually works?
You are all up in arms because it has been show mathematically to not do what it says it does, at which point you demand an analysis, but then follow up with an admission that the skill challenges work poorly and need to be modified in order to have fun.
I'm going to have to go with Mr Trollman on this one: "You sir just gave the show away: you don't have a clue about what you are talking about, and steadfastly refuse to get one.
Quote from: Doom;381313That said, being assured that you should toss all your D&D books and buy
4e because it doesn't have any of the same problems, was a bit annoying to some.
Nobody will ever create a complex, balanced, airtight RPG system. And anyone who buys into the hype that one is just around the corner is a fool, and deserves to get ripped off.
If you want a system you can run with a minimum of imbalance and glitches, then pick something really simple.
If you enjoy complex games, then be prepared for lots of adjudicating and fiddling.
It's that simple.
Quote from: StormBringer;381337Whoa, there, Chester. You are saying there is no problem with skill challenges, and at the same time you admit they don't work for many, so your solution is to not use this perfectly functional system as is, but to tweak it so it actually works?
When I say there's no problem, I mean it's not "broken", because (to me at least) that implies something that is beyond use.
I mean, houseruling is a sacred tradition in D&D. There are many subsystems in old AD&D that many people houseruled because they found them unworkable as-is. Are they broken too? Is AD&D beyond repair?
Quote from: StormBringer;381337You are all up in arms because it has been show mathematically to not do what it says it does, at which point you demand an analysis, but then follow up with an admission that the skill challenges work poorly and need to be modified in order to have fun.
What now? I don't recall demanding an analysis. At any rate, another DM in my group uses skill challenges as-is and they work fine for him (and for us when he's running the game). If they were broken, I don't see how that could happen.
Quote from: StormBringer;381337I'm going to have to go with Mr Trollman on this one: "You sir just gave the show away: you don't have a clue about what you are talking about, and steadfastly refuse to get one.
Any time you'd like to bring something substantive to the table, feel free.
Quote from: Fifth Element;381330I'd probably agree with that. It is a matter of degree, and it's probably more prevalent than it was before. Or perhaps it's just the greater ability to communicate we have nowadays?
You're on to something there. I'd say it has to do with internet in part. We've all had the rules lawyer at the game table, right? That's the guy you hear the most during the game, in terms of criticism, naturally. People who are fine with the game aren't going all the time "WOW COOL AWESOME". Same thing on the internet. It's the rules lawyers and the players with brooms up their asses that you'll hear complain the most in a game's audience. So WotC started to cater to this loud, obnoxious minority. It's part of the problem, certainly.
Quote from: Fifth Element;381330Dude, it's not "my game". You can keep reading that all you like, but it's just not there.
Do you want to have a discussion about the problems I have with 4E? I'll gladly do so, if I can get it without it devolving into edition war crap.
The way you defend the game in every possible way, every time you possibly can, that's the reading I end up making, yes. The problem with the "edition wars" meme is that it's just a way of saying "this discussion is not worth having, because I don't respect you". It's bullshit. The expression "edition wars" should be taken out of our vocabularies. We're not having an edition war here: we're having different opinions. That's *it*. The moment either one of us chooses to brand it "edition war", the discussion is, in effect, over. It's the Godwin of D&D discussions.
As for discussing your problems with 4e, if you feel like it, dude, I'm not the posting police here: go ahead, create a thread. J Arcane's going to cringe because it's "yet another 4e thread", but what the hell, right? If you want to talk about it, shoot for it.
I'm capable of respect. I do get some of your anger and frustration. It's like people constantly piss on your cheerios, the game you're playing right now and you like, and you're seeing it as a constant noise stopping you from discussing what's really cool about it. I get it. Thing is, by constantly going against these people, you're just making the noise louder and louder. Just fucking move on and talk about the stuff you want to talk about! :)
Quote from: Fifth Element;381330That's not PC, that's my opinion. You're free to disagree, and I know that you don't enjoy more recent editions. But I did mention it (since I know you hang out at ENWorld) to throw light on your ridiculous claim of 4E fanboyism.
Well your opinion may happen to be politically correct. It's alright though. I get what you're saying, and I'll take it as face value. You like all editions of the game equally. There. Done.
What I don't like is the assumption that "all editions are great" is the default way of thinking, that if you don't think that way, you must be weird and unbalanced, that you're like "gaming is serious business" (another stupid dismissive meme) and all that shit. Well, no. You can happen to make choices and have different outlooks on different games, God dammit. That doesn't make someone pathologically unbalanced. That is pure bullshit.
Quote from: Benoist;381344You're on to something there. I'd say it has to do with internet in part. We've all had the rules lawyer at the game table, right? That's the guy you hear the most during the game, in terms of criticism, naturally. People who are fine with the game aren't going all the time "WOW COOL AWESOME". Same thing on the internet. It's the rules lawyers and the players with brooms in their asses that you'll hear complain the most in a game's audience. So WotC started to cater to this loud, obnoxious minority. It's part of the problem, certainly.
That's a fair statement, I think. People who dislike things tend to be louder than those who are satisfied.
Quote from: Benoist;381344As for discussing your problems with 4e, if you feel like it, dude, I'm not the posting police here: go ahead, create a thread. J Arcane's going to cringe because it's "yet another 4e thread", but what the hell, right? If you want to talk about it, shoot for it.
I've talked about it enough on ENWorld, and the problem with starting such a thread here is that "cunt" will generally start getting thrown around by page two if not earlier. Or that someone like you will come in and post something like "This just demonstrates why I think 4E is fucked beyond all recognition" or something similarly informative.
Quote from: Benoist;381344Well your opinion may happen to be politically correct. It's alright though. I get what you're saying, and I'll take it as face value. You like all editions of the game equally. There. Done.
Not quite equally, no. But close enough for our purposes.
Quote from: Benoist;381344What I don't like is the assumption that "all editions are great" is the default way of thinking, that if you don't think that way, you must be weird and unbalanced, that you're like "gaming is serious business" (another stupid dismissive meme) and all that shit. Well, no.
No shit. Remember that I only brought it up here because you kept insisting that 4E is my one true love.
Quote from: Benoist;381344You can happen to make choices and have different outlooks on different games, God dammit. That doesn't make someone pathologically unbalanced. That is pure bullshit.
Again, no shit. I don't recall saying that.
Quote from: Fifth Element;381347I've talked about it enough on ENWorld, and the problem with starting such a thread here is that "cunt" will generally start getting thrown around by page two if not earlier. Or that someone like you will come in and post something like "This just demonstrates why I think 4E is fucked beyond all recognition" or something similarly informative.
What if they, or I, do? I mean, come on! They are entitled to their opinions, just like you are. Why is it the end of the world when someone posts something to the extent of "4e is fucked beyond all recognition"?
I can relate to that, when someone says something to the extent of "OD&D is the Model T of RPGs", honest. But at the end of the day, you're not going to change people's minds but rarely, when they're willing to do so. So you're going to stop talking and just butt heads with guys disagreeing with you because they exist?
Quote from: Fifth Element;381347No shit. Remember that I only brought it up here because you kept insisting that 4E is my one true love.
An impression that came from you white-knighting 4e. I mean. We're having an actual exchange here. You sure you want to go back to us flinging poo at each other? ;)
Quote from: Fifth Element;381347Again, no shit. I don't recall saying that.
Have you SEEN how this stuff is repeated and alluded to over and over and over on various message boards, like ENWorld, CM, Big Purple and so on? What the fuck? I mean. WOW. This line of arguments is so fucking tired, it's not funny.
Quote from: Fifth Element;381343What now? I don't recall demanding an analysis. At any rate, another DM in my group uses skill challenges as-is and they work fine for him (and for us when he's running the game). If they were broken, I don't see how that could happen.
I'm totally demanding an analysis, because I've never actually seen one done for the current system.
FWIW, a brief history of skill challenges:
The first rendition was bad. Difficulties were way too high, and it was fairly difficult to succeed at a skill challenge. This made people not want to use them.
The second rendition lowered difficulties. This made skill challenges pretty easy. I happen to like that, and it was an intended result of the changes. Nonetheless, some people started claiming that skill challenges were bad because they were so easy. These people ignored the possibility of making the skill challenges more difficult by raising the level of the skill challenge, but never mind that.
The second rendition also removed the whole lame bit where you had to go around the table, everyone had to participate, and so on. It was still somewhat iffy, because it was a fairly mechanical process and you could easily wind up with one person rolling Diplomacy over and over again. I wasn't really happy with this version, either.
The third rendition (DMG 2) is great. It added a lot of interesting variations, from group skill checks to explicit rules for breaking up skill challenges with combats and so on. It hasn't been modeled by anyone, so when someone says skill challenges have been modeled and fail, it's a sign that they aren't keeping up with the current state of affairs. It isn't perfect, but if you stay sane and use it as a framework on which you hang roleplay, it's pretty good.
Quote from: Benoist;381350What if they, or I, do? I mean, come on! They are entitled to their opinions, just like you are. Why is it the end of the world when someone posts something to the extent of "4e is fucked beyond all recognition"?
Not the end of the world. Just not worth my time is all.
Quote from: Benoist;381350Have you SEEN how this stuff is repeated and alluded to over and over and over on various message boards, like ENWolrd, CM, Big Purple and so on? What the fuck? I mean. WOW.
I certainly have seen it. But if you're having a discussion with me, you should keep in mind what I'm saying, not what other people are saying, or what you assume I'm thinking.
If you're going to respond to a post of mine to complain about what other people have said on other messageboards, you should probably be clear about that. It aids in the discussion.
Book of Nine Swords is rock-solid design!
Quote from: Settembrini;381355Book of Nine Swords is rock-solid design!
Love the Crusader in there. I'm actually serious. :o
I played a Warblade as well as a crusader. The warblade is awesome, the crusader plays a bit like 4e, in that he has very little choice in maneuvres and thusly plays repetitively. The Warblade OTOH...
Quote from: Benoist;381356Love the Crusader in there. I'm actually serious. :o
The Crusader is broken. Any idiot knows that!
Quote from: Fifth Element;381358The Crusader is broken. Any idiot knows that!
I don't give a shit about it being "broken" - it's only "broken" if your DM sucks ass. It's the way the Crusaders abilities work that I like. It's original in the context of 3rd ed. I don't remember exactly how it worked right off the bat, but it involved some cards you could write the abilities on, and then you randomly pulled one, right? Something like that.
Quote from: Fifth Element;381343When I say there's no problem, I mean it's not "broken", because (to me at least) that implies something that is beyond use.
I mean, houseruling is a sacred tradition in D&D. There are many subsystems in old AD&D that many people houseruled because they found them unworkable as-is. Are they broken too? Is AD&D beyond repair?
That isn't the argument here. What 'broken' means to you is really irrelevant. The fact remains, the skill challenge system does not work as advertised.
QuoteWhat now? I don't recall demanding an analysis. At any rate, another DM in my group uses skill challenges as-is and they work fine for him (and for us when he's running the game). If they were broken, I don't see how that could happen.
So, when the simple challenges fail far more often than the complex challenges, your claim is that the skill challenge system is 'working fine'? It's your contention that '4 successes before 2 failures' is
supposed to end in overall failure far more often than '8 successes before 4 failures'?
QuoteAny time you'd like to bring something substantive to the table, feel free.
When you bring something substantive to comment on, I will consider it.
Here is some data to mull over, however:
Data on skill challenges (http://www.enworld.org/forum/4e-discussion/230357-heavy-concrete-data-d-d-4th-editions-skill-challenge-system-long-lots-tables.html)
I gave up looking for the original series of posts. ENWorld is
so fucking slow all the time, it is maddening.
Quote from: Benoist;381360I don't give a shit about it being "broken" - it's only "broken" if your DM sucks ass.
Couldn't agree more.
Quote from: StormBringer;381361So, when the simple challenges fail far more often than the complex challenges, your claim is that the skill challenge system is 'working fine'? It's your contention that '4 successes before 2 failures' is supposed to end in overall failure far more often than '8 successes before 4 failures'?
So that does answer one of Thanlis' points: you
are using the old rules.
Quote from: Fifth Element;381362Couldn't agree more.
So, having to overhaul or ignore a system or sub-system means there aren't any problems with it? Or that a shitty DM can ruin even a good set of rules, so the rules themselves are never the problem? 4e doesn't have rules problems, just DM problems, but older editions are clearly unplayable?
I'm not sure where you are going with what you probably consider a clever little 'gotcha', but I guarantee, it won't end up anywhere good for you.
Quote from: Fifth Element;381363So that does answer one of Thanlis' points: you are using the old rules.
The which rules, now? The ones that have had three or more erratas to fix? Are we sure the latest errata is the one that really works? They have had several tries to get it working, when a bit of analysis and clear thinking led Stalker0 to a functional and critically acclaimed skill challenge system in about one try. Are we sure we want to claim that the latest set of skill challenge rules is really the best? Or just the best until the next errata, or the Essentials line, or 5e, or whenever they plan on
actually fixing things?
Just to be clear, you assert that the original skill challenge is fine, but after three or more updates and fixes is it
more fine?
Quote from: Fifth Element;381362Couldn't agree more.
Notice that I didn't rant about Skill Challenges myself. I don't know enough about them at this point to formulate a judgment on any particulars, one way or another, other than the
principle of them, which I find objectionable.
Quote from: StormBringer;381364So, having to overhaul or ignore a system or sub-system means there aren't any problems with it?
"Having no problems" is not the opposite of "broken" in RPG parlance. If a subsystem that some (often many) people feel the need to tweak is "broken", then pretty much all of AD&D is broken. It isn't, of course, and that's my point.
Quote from: StormBringer;381364I'm not sure where you are going with what you probably consider a clever little 'gotcha', but I guarantee, it won't end up anywhere good for you.
Where I'm going with that is to point out how ridiculous your claim is that since I don't "realize" that skill challenges are broken, I must not know anything about 4E.
I wonder where it would end up though. Would you get really, really mad? Maybe call me some bad names? Just curious.
Quote from: Benoist;381366Notice that I didn't rant about Skill Challenges myself. I don't know enough about them at this point to formulate a judgment, one way or another, other than the principle of them, which I find objectionable.
I consider the principle of them to be that some things should not be determined by the success or failure of a single skill check. If it's a complex thing, one good Diplomacy roll shouldn't be enough. That's hardly a new idea, but it hadn't really been formalized in D&D.
Quote from: StormBringer;381361Here is some data to mull over, however:
Data on skill challenges (http://www.enworld.org/forum/4e-discussion/230357-heavy-concrete-data-d-d-4th-editions-skill-challenge-system-long-lots-tables.html)
I gave up looking for the original series of posts. ENWorld is so fucking slow all the time, it is maddening.
Table 3 is the only relevant table at this point, since it reflects something fairly close to revision 2 of the system (as per my notes above). Table 1 is also accurate, but it's a baseline rather than something from which you can draw conclusions.
Table 3 fails in a few places, unfortunately. First, Aid Another doesn't work like that anymore; letting everyone aid could reduces the chances of success. (Consider what happens if someone fumbles the lock.) Second, the DM has never been compelled to let everyone aid, even if playing by the book. So that's a bad assumption anyway. Third... what's wrong with a 75% success rate?
All in all, what that post demonstrates is that the first version of the skill challenge system wasn't very good. But we knew that.
Quote from: Fifth Element;381368I consider the principle of them to be that some things should not be determined by the success or failure of a single skill check. If it's a complex thing, one good Diplomacy roll shouldn't be enough. That's hardly a new idea, but it hadn't really been formalized in D&D.
It's the idea of formalizing the practice that I find objectionable.
Quote from: Benoist;381370It's the idea of formalizing the practice that I find objectionable.
Eh, that's a matter of preference and a matter of degree. There has to be some degree of formalization unless you run a completely rules-free game. So it's a matter of where you draw the line.
Quote from: Benoist;381370It's the idea of formalizing the practice that I find objectionable.
Just a cheeky point, but Mike Mearls' LiveJournal avatar is also Yoda, and one could claim that Benoist is antagonising the man?
Am I a fan of Mike? Not especially when you judge his quality of rules and adventures.
Quote from: Fifth Element;381367"Having no problems" is not the opposite of "broken" in RPG parlance. If a subsystem that some (often many) people feel the need to tweak is "broken", then pretty much all of AD&D is broken. It isn't, of course, and that's my point.
No, that is your attempt to derail the actual point, because up until you injected that part, no one said anything about AD&D. In fact, AD&D was not intended to cover all possible permutations, and was designed for tweaking. Your attempt to make it sound like this is the exact same as the current situation is disingenuous, at best. And a diversion to get away from addressing the fact that a highly touted and very core system in 4e did not do what it was advertised to do right out of the gate, and there are no guarantees that the people who took three tries to fix it have it right this time.
QuoteWhere I'm going with that is to point out how ridiculous your claim is that since I don't "realize" that skill challenges are broken, I must not know anything about 4E.
But it is perfectly reasonable to claim that no one could possibly know anything without direct experience? You claim that information cannot possibly be transmitted, nor anything learned from analysis? I can't possibly claim that a Winnebago would make an extremely poor jet fighter unless I weld some wings and a few missiles on and take it for a test?
QuoteI wonder where it would end up though. Would you get really, really mad? Maybe call me some bad names? Just curious.
Well, I probably would stick to the argument at hand instead of trying to impugn someone's character in a desperate attempt to deflect criticism, or to obfuscate support of an already failed argument. Oh, look, that is what I did! Huh. That is curious. Or is that little dig up there what you consider 'substantive'? I can reply in kind, if you prefer, and you can feel all passive-aggressive like on tBP or ENWorld. Your call.
Quote from: StormBringer;381374In fact, AD&D was not intended to cover all possible permutations, and was designed for tweaking.
That's irrelevant when discussing the subsystems that do exist.
Quote from: StormBringer;381374But it is perfectly reasonable to claim that no one could possibly know anything without direct experience?
No, but if I did it would not be incompatible with my comment.
Besides, my argument was that Benoist could not know anything about
what he was specifically arguing without direct experience. Which you take, in classic messageboard fashion, to mean I'm arguing that no one could know anything anywhere in any way.
Quote from: StormBringer;381374Well, I probably would stick to the argument at hand instead of trying to impugn someone's character in a desperate attempt to deflect criticism
Or, you could go straight for the ad hominem. Oh, you did that already.
Quote from: Fifth Element;381371Eh, that's a matter of preference and a matter of degree. There has to be some degree of formalization unless you run a completely rules-free game. So it's a matter of where you draw the line.
I agree it's a matter of where you draw the line. I would disagree this would be solely a matter of preference, however, when the degree of formalization of the rules impact practices around a game table, which means the game plays differently with different degrees of formalization.
After, we sure can have different opinions as to the best way to design the game so that it accomodates and enables certain practices around a game table and the fun that comes out of it, but that's not -just- a matter of preferences. It's about how these preferences affect a game's design, and the message it sends to its user base at large -particularly when talking about newbies starting to play RPGs with said game.
Quote from: Lawbag;381373Just a cheeky point, but Mike Mearls' LiveJournal avatar is also Yoda, and one could claim that Benoist is antagonising the man?
Am I a fan of Mike? Not especially when you judge his quality of rules and adventures.
Heh. I was an Iron Liege for the Iron League, the fan group/website for Iron Heroes. It's not my fault if Mike decided to travel forward in time, saw me use this avatar, and decided it would be cool to emulate! :D
Quote from: Fifth Element;381377That's irrelevant when discussing the subsystems that do exist.
Which isn't what was under discussion. We are specifically discussing the 4e skill challenge system. Is it fixed now, after three attempts?
QuoteNo, but if I did it would not be incompatible with my comment.
So you aren't saying that.
QuoteBesides, my argument was that Benoist could not know anything about what he was specifically arguing without direct experience. Which you take, in classic messageboard fashion, to mean I'm arguing that no one could know anything anywhere in any way.
Oh, wait, you are saying that. Hmmm... It's almost as if you are simply making up any statement that will countervail what I have said, without regard to internal consistency or agreement.
But here, let me throw you a soft pitch: How are RPGs so unique that one cannot possibly understand them without experience? Because if they aren't, you really are maintaining a position that only experience teaches anything. Unless you have no concern for internal consistency. Otherwise, if RPGs are not special snowflakes, they are capable of being analyzed outside of direct experience, and your above statement that it isn't even possible to analyze them, or in fact, know anything about them without direct experience makes them somehow totally unique in the universe, let alone within the somewhat smaller sphere of games in general.
QuoteOr, you could go straight for the ad hominem. Oh, you did that already.
As I said, I will gladly respond in kind, if you prefer. You can pretend to be the victim, but there are no mods to swoop in and protect you. You are stuck defending the indefensible point that no one could possibly understand a given RPG unless they play it. I didn't force you into that corner, you went there all by yourself. There is no sense in being all pissed off at me because you went off half-cocked without stopping for a second to consider the point you were making, all in service to nerd-rage that someone could have the gall to point out some problems with 4e that have taken three errata to
possibly fix. Errata you seem to think corrected problems that you are asserting didn't exist in the first place, but for the shitty DMs that didn't ignore the system, or modify it so it did work, because it was working just fine in the first place.
Are you asserting that a lower complexity skill challenge should fail more often than a higher complexity challenge, as was originally published?
Just throwing this out there, probably not even relavent to much of this discussion, but if you want to beat a rules lawyer, the trick is to know the rules better than them. A corollary to this is to not allow rules at your table that you do not know better than the rules lawyer. That is why, typically, when I run 3e I only use the three main books, and if I ran 4e I would do the exact same. At least, if I AM going to allow another book(s) I try to read them beforehand. I personally nailed our resident lawyer twice in one session on things he thought I was doing wrong because I'd re-read the book the week before, and he was just going from memory.
So, there is that I guess.
Quote from: Werekoala;381392Just throwing this out there, probably not even relavent to much of this discussion, but if you want to beat a rules lawyer, the trick is to know the rules better than them. A corollary to this is to not allow rules at your table that you do not know better than the rules lawyer. That is why, typically, when I run 3e I only use the three main books, and if I ran 4e I would do the exact same. At least, if I AM going to allow another book(s) I try to read them beforehand. I personally nailed our resident lawyer twice in one session on things he thought I was doing wrong because I'd re-read the book the week before, and he was just going from memory.
So, there is that I guess.
I have a different approach: I wear the viking hat at the table. ;)
Quote from: StormBringer;381393I have a different approach: I wear the viking hat at the table. ;)
Or that. I'd need to get one first I guess. :)
Quote from: StormBringer;381393I have a different approach: I wear the viking hat at the table. ;)
Yeah, basically. There's no doubt that catching a rules lawyer at his own game is great, but at the end of the day, you're running the risk of just going forward with the arms race, with the rules lawyer re-reading the rules, following your every move in the game with his notes next to him, etc. The only final solution is to wear the Viking Hat and gently (?) but firmly (!) ask him to "shut the fuck up and play the damn game". :D
Quote from: Werekoala;381396Or that. I'd need to get one first I guess. :)
It is so much more satisfying to revel in the crushed dreams of your players when you have one on. Their tears of despair are also much, much sweeter. :)
Quote from: Benoist;381397Yeah, basically. There's no doubt that catching a rules lawyer at his own game is great, but at the end of the day, you're running the risk of just going forward with the arms race, with the rules lawyer re-reading the rules, following your every move in the game with his notes next to him, etc. The only final solution is to wear the Viking Hat and gently (?) but firmly (!) ask him to "shut the fuck up and play the damn game". :D
Nothing works better than responding with a flat "Yes, I'm aware of that." when they bring something up to argue. :)
Quote from: Werekoala;381392Just throwing this out there, probably not even relavent to much of this discussion, but if you want to beat a rules lawyer, the trick is to know the rules better than them. A corollary to this is to not allow rules at your table that you do not know better than the rules lawyer. That is why, typically, when I run 3e I only use the three main books, and if I ran 4e I would do the exact same. At least, if I AM going to allow another book(s) I try to read them beforehand. I personally nailed our resident lawyer twice in one session on things he thought I was doing wrong because I'd re-read the book the week before, and he was just going from memory.
"OK, I do 5d8+30 damage to each enemy I hit, they're all dazed whether or not I hit, and the DM has to give me a puppy."
"Oh, that power must be from Dragon!"
(Somebody's going to humorlessly point this out as evidence that 4e is fucked, but I can't refuse to make jokes because the Internet has no sense of humor. I just can't do it.)
Also, re: rules lawyers and Viking hats: yes. I like LFR a lot. I also like being able to say "I'm going to rule that differently because I think it'll make the game better."
Quote from: Settembrini;381357I played a Warblade as well as a crusader. The warblade is awesome, the crusader plays a bit like 4e, in that he has very little choice in maneuvres and thusly plays repetitively. The Warblade OTOH...
I enjoyed the one Warblade I played with that book as well.
Not directly related to the above: I think "AD&D was wonky as hell, too!" is a pretty weak ass defense of 4e's flaws, since the implicit position of 4e is that it is superior to its predecessors. Is there a reason for me to buy 4e if it isn't mechanically better than earlier editions?
Quote from: StormBringer;381399Nothing works better than responding with a flat "Yes, I'm aware of that." when they bring something up to argue. :)
I am SO stealing this it isn't even funny. I can even see the look on his face when I use it.
When I was playing AD&D, hit the monster, and the DM would tell me my mace did only d4 damage, my first reaction wouldn't be "ZOMG! WTF!" I would just throw a look at the DM, to which he would probably nod back with a grin, and I would proceed in throwing the d4. His game. His rules.
Quote from: Benoist;381146Dude, I'm getting that's not your reading of it.
I'm not sure what that means...
Quote from: Benoist;381146But you trying to again create some sort of pointless nitpicking bullshit flamewar out of thin air...
And you cross-posted this here for the mild-mannered discussion past history has shown would result?
But, no, my point in addressing the statement was to demonstrate, again, that, yeah, people actually like 4e and while it's okay that it's not your cup of tea, the game isn't going to be thrown over because you prefer older editions...
Seanchai
Quote from: Seanchai;381410Seanchai
Jesus. Already done with that piece of glass?
Quote from: jrients;381166Waitaminute. Skill Challenges still haven't been definitively fixed yet? I'm genuinely shocked by this. Where's the betting pool for whether Skill Challenges will appear in the Essentials line at all?
I'm not really sure what he is talking about. They were fixed, and they had a great chapter on it in DMG II. They are not perfect, but they are much improved in my opinion and now function pretty well.
Quote from: Werekoala;381405I am SO stealing this it isn't even funny. I can even see the look on his face when I use it.
Post the pics. :)
Quote from: StormBringer;381416Post the pics. :)
I imagine it'll be something along the lines of a puppy that just got kicked and someone who ate something that tasted like shit. Maybe I can break his facial muscles and it'll stick like that. :)
Quote from: StormBringer;381316As I recall, you seem to think that skill challenges work just fine. With all that experience playing 4e, it would be odd to still believe there isn't a problem with skill challenges. Even after it was shown mathematically, and three (four? five?) separate erratas released to fix the problems.
I really don't get this.
Yes, Skill Challenges had a problem.
They fixed them, and then also released an entire new chapter on the best ways to use them, how to deal with different kinds of them, etc..
Now, they work just fine. The math works fine now. The advice is good now. So, what exactly is your beef with Skill Challenges (other than that they initially had a problem)?
Quote from: Mistwell;381420I really don't get this.
Yes, Skill Challenges had a problem.
They fixed them, and then also released an entire new chapter on the best ways to use them, how to deal with different kinds of them, etc..
Now, they work just fine. The math works fine now. The advice is good now. So, what exactly is your beef with Skill Challenges (other than that they initially had a problem)?
The math works fine now? From the people who took three tries to get it right, you can say that unequivocally, the math is fine now. When they claimed they had a mathematician in the first place, and the math was fine in the first iteration. And the advice sounds like you should break it up and not use it as presented.
You are saying this is absolutely not going to get another errata?
I still don't "get" skill challenges (yes, they're one of the things I don't like :p). Even if they were mechanically sound (which I've heard argued back and forth with this errata and that), they're still ridiculously boring in terms of mechanics. Rather than give you something interesting that takes multiple party/character variables into account, they've given you the most ridiculously mundane round-table sort of affair for adjudicating out-of-combat encounters.
Honestly, I'd just rather add up or subtract a modifier or two for situation, and then make a fucking roll, so I don't have to mentally go elsewhere for a few minutes while my DM tries to make it interesting somehow. Or, at the very least, run them stealth like Mearls says he does. That way it doesn't turn into a completely stilted event.
I find stealth skill challenges work fine.
I think the biggest thing about skill challenges is remember that sometimes the PC's can just walk away. I've seen too much, 'but guys you have 5 successess and 2 failures you can't stoppppp noowwwww' which is bullshit. If no one is interested in a skill challenge, drop the skill challenge, the same way you would fighting mooks.
as for reducing everything down to a single roll, go right ahead. I think alot of people are bitching about a system that is trying to help give the gm another way to do things for no reason other than OMG HOW DARE A GAME DESIGNER DESIGN GAMES
To put it nicely, it doesn't do jack, and the design is pretty mediocre.
If you're going to have a mechanical event in the game, it should be interesting and multi-faceted, or quick and painless. Either it's something that's interesting to get into, or it's not. Take Duel of Wits from BW, or the social combat systems from things like Exalted or Diaspora. Those are just as interesting to take part in as combat. They are fun to engage with on the game level because they require, you know, gaming.
But what sort of game is there to skill challenges? Nothing, really. It's a series of checks, where one (or none) should suffice. It's rolling for the sake of rolling, with no interesting game to it to keep people involved. It's a half-assed attempt to marry improvisational/role-play abilities with a mechanical event that at its best has absolutely no tactical depth and adds no real color to play, and at its worst interrupts what is otherwise a natural flow of character role-play. The whole point of rolling dice is because a) There is a game to it with some depth that is fun to navigate or b) To quickly settle a matter so that everyone can agree on what happens in the game.
Making checks is fine. Making multiple checks is fine (to an extent). But I don't see any benefits to following the procedure as it is outlined in the DMG and the errata.
The problem with skills challenges is that they limit the choices a character can make, based solely on the skills that they have. If the entire skills pool is too small, than one or more characters will have a good chance of meeting or exceeding the challenge. if the pool is too large, there is no point in the skills challenge as none of the characters would be trained in all the skills necessary, to overcome the challenges, and the challenge mechanic breaks down and fails here.
The challenge itself is the key, in that it offers an opportunity for gain or loss.
All who want should be able to participate in the challenge, with the ones that are trained or experienced in using the skill being able to gain an advantage, and those without training or experience with the skills (Previous successes) having a more than a disadvantage, and in fact making the situation worse.
Example: Before the thief shows up the fighter tries to pick the lock of a wooden door with a dagger and fails. The dagger breaks, and part of the dagger is now jammed in the lock mechanism. The thief now shows up to pick the lock, and can't, because the lock is jammed.
At this point the cleric can attempt to burn down the door with a torch and some oil.
The (other) fighter can try to break the door down with the axe.
Or the mage can try to destroy the door with magic.
Also, this is where a GM is still useful as the players have even more options.... The players can bring the mule in to kick the door in. If there's a handle on the door, the players can attach a rope or chain, and have the horse pull the door apart, or they can goad the horse into kicking the door.
Also, any player with a hammer, or hammer and chisel could try to break the lock.
I like skills. They are good for speedily resolving common problems, and should be used as such, but not for more. The rest should be left to the GM to adjudicate, creating a new process or mechanic on the spot, with the help of the players of course, to resolve the challenge.
This is where a GM (and the players as well) also have to step off the rulesbook train, quit looking for a solution in the books that can't possibly cover all the situations, and agree to move on with the game itself.
So the social agreement would be?
Don't let the rules themselves, and lack (or excess) of a specific rules covering a skills challenge, or any other challenge for that matter, derail the course or momentum of the game itself.
What am I missing here?
Here's how D&D4e went down for me.
I had a look at the books in the store. I didn't like the look of them, that's a lot of rules just to kill things and take their stuff.
Then I went and watched a game session, and it was even worse than the books.
So I don't play the game.
I'm not really sure why you need more discussion than that. If you like and play it there's lots to say, if you don't, just leave it at that. It's like going on a first date and talking to the person about how everyone else you've dated is horrible. It might be true, but it doesn't really make for a fun date now.
Well, there are those of us who play and like it, but don't like certain aspects of it.
Quote from: Peregrin;381526Well, there are those of us who play and like it, but don't like certain aspects of it.
Yes, we call you 'the sane ones'. ;)
Quote from: StormBringer;381531Yes, we call you 'the sane ones'. ;)
I'd sig that, but then I might get dragged into The 4e Madness (Yes, it deserves capital letters). :D
Hmm..."Gasp! StormBringer called someone who plays 4e 'sane'! Imposter! Pod person! RUN, THE MIND-CONTROL CRABS WILL GET YOU!" :D
Quote from: jrients;381402I enjoyed the one Warblade I played with that book as well.
What I really loved about it was the MULTITUDE it offered. You can go apeshit with the felxibility. The flexibility that I always wanted for a Fighter. Now you can be good with ANY weapon, and trip, disarm, bull rush, do CON damage, do dice based bonus damage with a stance, tumble etc.
When 4e came and the "everyone is a warblade"-angle was promoted, I was INTERESTED. But instead of opening up flexibility for everyone, what you got was noe EVERYONE may ONLY do HP damage (exactly the amount you ought to, btw...) or shift you some squares. The fucking boring what?!
BTW, before Frank is too sad: We have a henchman fighter with the Trollmanian "More-Fightery-Fighter" rules in our campaign. Definitely flexible, too.
Quote from: Settembrini;381545What I really loved about it was the MULTITUDE it offered. You can go apeshit with the felxibility. The flexibility that I always wanted for a Fighter. Now you can be good with ANY weapon, and trip, disarm, bull rush, do CON damage, do dice based bonus damage with a stance, tumble etc.
When 4e came and the "everyone is a warblade"-angle was promoted, I was INTERESTED. But instead of opening up flexibility for everyone, what you got was noe EVERYONE may ONLY do HP damage (exactly the amount you ought to, btw...) or shift you some squares. The fucking boring what?!
BTW, before Frank is too sad: We have a henchman fighter with the Trollmanian "More-Fightery-Fighter" rules in our campaign. Definitely flexible, too.
Yep on the first two paragraphs. Wut? on the second.
Quote from: Narf the Mouse;381549Yep on the first two paragraphs. Wut? on the second.
Not really sure myself. Might have something to do with an open source sourcebook I made called Races of War (http://dungeons.wikia.com/wiki/Races_of_War_(3.5e_Sourcebook)). It makes its way around the internet. Someone made a pdf out of it, and someone else loaded it onto that wiki I linked to. That's what open source means, so I'm cool with it.
-Frank
Quote from: Narf the Mouse;381000Step 1) Rip out the Powers section.
Step 2) Insert a Stunt section.
Step 3) Profit!
Yeah, this is exactly my complaint against 3.0 forward. Let people try to do things and have rules for how well that goes. Don't legislate it down to a list of feats or powers. Not that I haven't got other issues with the design but this is the absolute fun killer for me.
Quote from: thedungeondelver;381083Ask the folks at ICE or whomever was publishing Champions just what happens when you ditch the entire system to "reinvent" it (Hero Fuzion which was arguably the worst mainstream RPG ever)
ICE had been out of Champions for several years when FUZION came along.
Quote from: David Johansen;381570Yeah, this is exactly my complaint against 3.0 forward. Let people try to do things and have rules for how well that goes. Don't legislate it down to a list of feats or powers. Not that I haven't got other issues with the design but this is the absolute fun killer for me.
ICE had been out of Champions for several years when FUZION came along.
Who was in charge?
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;381525I'm not really sure why you need more discussion than that. If you like and play it there's lots to say, if you don't, just leave it at that.
I can't for the life of me figure out why some people around here who don't play D&D 4E are obsessed with that game. I don't play it, but I don't care about the game anymore than I care about the tv show House (which I don't watch), the mysteries of Ruth Rendell (which I don't read) and the Final Fantasy CRPG games (which I don't play). So where do these well-springs of resentment come from?
Quote from: Haffrung;381585So where do these well-springs of resentment come from?
Some people just love to complain about anything and everything?
The particular target subject of their fury, is in principle largely arbitrary. But in practice, attacking the larger gorillas makes the biggest amount of noise and one of the more efficient uses of their energy and ego on their own part. (The biggest bang for the buck, so to say).
Quote from: Haffrung;381585I can't for the life of me figure out why some people around here who don't play D&D 4E are obsessed with that game. I don't play it, but I don't care about the game anymore than I care about the tv show House (which I don't watch), the mysteries of Ruth Rendell (which I don't read) and the Final Fantasy CRPG games (which I don't play). So where do these well-springs of resentment come from?
It's the biggest game. It's Dungeons and Dragons. It's the generic game.
Dungeons and Dragons 4e being a shitty game that I don't want to play actually makes it harder for me to find a game that I do want to play. 4e D&D failing more than it already is not only creates more room for other games I like better, but has a very real chance of pushing future D&D versions in a direction that I would like better as well.
-Frank
Quote from: FrankTrollman;381590It's the biggest game. It's Dungeons and Dragons. It's the generic game.
Dungeons and Dragons 4e being a shitty game that I don't want to play actually makes it harder for me to find a game that I do want to play. 4e D&D failing more than it already is not only creates more room for other games I like better, but has a very real chance of pushing future D&D versions in a direction that I would like better as well.
-Frank
As much as I would like to agree with you Frank on these points, I suspect the more likely event is that D&D's designers largely don't give a damn about what the online "rabble rousers" and "riff raff" say at all. I wouldn't be surprised at all, if Mearls and other D&D designers are just snickering at us and virtually giving us all the middle finger. The more we trash Mearls and other D&D designers, the more they dig in their heels and tell us to virtually fuck off. Since we're not paying customers, they think they can get away with being belligerent in return (with a smirk on their faces).
In practice, most likely the only way to get Mearls and other D&D designer's attention, is to go up to them in person and punch them in the face or smash a beer bottle over their head. Otherwise, we're the just the "unwashed masses" which are largely a source of amusement and entertainment for Mearls and other D&D designers.
Besides, these guys are going to be canned anyway in the future in one of WotC's annual layoff cycles. Why should they even give a damn, when they too are ultimately expendable? Destroying D&D would be Mearls and other D&D designers' way of giving the middle finger to Hasbro.
Ultimately it is a daisy chain of people screwing over one another, and giving the middle finger to one another. Each part of the chain is largely saying "fuck you" to other parts of the chain.
Quote from: ggroy;381595Ultimately it is a daisy chain of people screwing over one another, and giving the middle finger to one another. Each part of the chain is largely saying "fuck you" to other parts of the chain.
Just like Real Life(tm)!
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;381525I'm not really sure why you need more discussion than that [about 4e].
It's the 800 pound gorilla in the room. The "default" RPG when you search for a gaming group amongst gamers. Lots of gamers will meet and discuss 4e for the first time - it's just a way of knowing what kind of games you like to play.
A few months back I was in Vancouver, and I met a gamer in a local store while looking at some book. We exchanged smiles, you know, I stepped aside for him to grab a book. Stuff. We said something about a game we both liked. Then the first question that popped up in the conversation was basically "What do you think of 4e?" to which I answered "I like to play D&D so... 4e's not for me". He answered with a knowing smile. We went on discussing stuff.
So yeah. Whatever current version of D&D is at this point, it's the unavoidable game in the hobby, the thing that people will discuss at some point or the other. Now, add to this this is the internet, with many people here in particular who actually love D&D, whatever they think it is, and you get discussions about 4e.
Quote from: FrankTrollman;381590It's the biggest game. It's Dungeons and Dragons. It's the generic game.
Dungeons and Dragons 4e being a shitty game that I don't want to play actually makes it harder for me to find a game that I do want to play. 4e D&D failing more than it already is not only creates more room for other games I like better, but has a very real chance of pushing future D&D versions in a direction that I would like better as well.
-Frank
Or to put it in other words: this too.
I just hate seeing a game with a great legacy being mashed up. That's annoying. Frustrating is when they do stuff like the 4e Village of Hommlet conversion and do a botch job and leave new players with an idea that that's how it was - and it isn't. Then when I (or benoist, or kellri, or just about any one of a hundred other people or more) make the complaint, all these shrill folks start in on OMG GET OFF MY LAWN LUL GRUMPY OLD GROGNARD ALERT - that's my "problem" with what's going on with 4e.
I mean aside from the trainwreck that is the new rules system.
Quote from: Narf the Mouse;381572Who was in charge?
R Talsorian Games was responsible for Champions the New Millennium and the whole Fuzion fiasco.
Anyhow, as I think about defining D&D I'd go with the core concepts of Gary Gygax's game:
gonzo tolkienesque medieval fantasy
broad, archetypical classes
balance based on long term campaign play
hit dice per level
polyhedral dice
d20 to hit d% for various other stuff
armour makes you harder to hit
stat set and associated stat bonuses
fire and forget magic
irrational/unstructured spell lists
wargame oriented language and structure
Quote from: thedungeondelver;381673I just hate seeing a game with a great legacy being mashed up. That's annoying. Frustrating is when they do stuff like the 4e Village of Hommlet conversion and do a botch job and leave new players with an idea that that's how it was - and it isn't. Then when I (or benoist, or kellri, or just about any one of a hundred other people or more) make the complaint, all these shrill folks start in on OMG GET OFF MY LAWN LUL GRUMPY OLD GROGNARD ALERT - that's my "problem" with what's going on with 4e.
It's getting worse and worse with times too, as more people either become brainwashed by the games they play now, as opposed to what they were playing in the past, and new people come to the game through iterations like 4e, and don't know shit about what came before.
Add to this that the current stewards of the property don't give a flying fuck about the game's legacy (
Forgotten Realms and
Dragonlance are the first D&D campaign settings? Really? p.7 of 4e's PHB), and you get all sorts of really dumb, factually wrong memes either created out of thin air, or perpetuated, about the game.
Quote from: thedungeondelver;381673I just hate seeing a game with a great legacy being mashed up.
Probably best if you simply regard it as a different game than the one you play(ed). I plan to see the new Clash of the Titans movie this weekend. I don't expect it to have anything in common with the original other than the title. It's made for a different audience in a different era.
Quote from: Benoist;381677It's getting worse and worse with times too, as more people either become brainwashed by the games they play now, as opposed to what they were playing in the past, and new people come to the game through iterations like 4e, and don't know shit about what came before.
Welcome to getting old. Soon enough you'll find you have virtually no common ground with people 15 years younger than you, and pop culture will become increasingly bewildering to you as it caters to those people. This isn't brainwashing - it's lots of other people liking different things than you like, and companies making money by selling to them instead of you.
These games aren't being made for you any more. You aren't the audience. Accept it and move on.
Shortly after we die, most of us will be largely forgotten. Very few of us will leave behind a lasting legacy, such as an Albert Einstein or a Sir Isaac Newton.
Ben, you sound kinda like Edwards there...please don't scare me like that...
I mean, thinking old games are shit and only playing new editions is one thing, but some people play new games just because they like them, not because they believe they're objectively better. My friends all started with 3e, and a few like 4e, but they all agreed to play an AD&D game I'm thinking about running. They just want to play games.
But brainwashed is a pretty strong term...
Quote from: Haffrung;381691Welcome to getting old. Soon enough you'll find you have virtually no common ground with people 15 years younger than you, and pop culture will become increasingly bewildering to you as it caters to those people. This isn't brainwashing - it's lots of other people liking different things than you like, and companies making money by selling to them instead of you.
These games aren't being made for you any more. You aren't the audience. Accept it and move on.
Sure, I know you're speaking truth, here. Doesn't mean I have to automatically accept it and move on, though.
See, I was born in 1977. Which means I never knew the actual original D&D. If hadn't met guys who just didn't let it go and kept pushing for the stuff they liked, then I would never have been put in contact with this gem of a game in the first place.
Same thing could be said of pre-The Wall Pink Floyd, or for God's sakes, all the wonderful vintage blues there is to listen to. Or Black Sabbath. Led Zep. Jimi. The Beatles. Whatever.
So... no. I don't have to just give up and move on. Sure, I can accept the fact that increasingly people will call me a grognard and someone with obsolete tastes and stuff. Doesn't mean I stop loving what I love, nor do I have to stop talking about it. After, people just do whatever they want with my various ramblings. Their choice. Made mine.
Quote from: Peregrin;381702But brainwashed is a pretty strong term...
Yeah, well. I didn't mean it to say you're like a victim of child rape or irreversibly brain-damaged, as Edwards proudly does from his pedestal of theoretical wankery.
What I meant by saying "people brainwashed by the games they play now as opposed to..." was that people get used to the games they play now, and forget what was so good about older designs that strikes these new games under a new light that makes you go suddenly "what the fuck are they doing?!"
That's what I mean. It's not irreversible, it's not congenital, it's not some sort of comparison with experiences such as rape, which are completely different things for anyone who knows what he's talking about, even remotely (and I provided enough psychological aid to victims of sexual and physical abuse to know what I'm talking about, here). So no. I'm certainly not making such a moronic parallel.
I just hope that Mearls doesn't touch 5e at all. He's done enough already, if ya know what I mean.
Quote from: Thorn Drumheller;381710I just hope that Mearls doesn't touch 5e at all. He's done enough already, if ya know what I mean.
Too late. He'll turn it a Mongoose version of D&D. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Benoist;381703Same thing could be said of pre-The Wall Pink Floyd, or for God's sakes, all the wonderful vintage blues there is to listen to. Or Black Sabbath. Led Zep. Jimi. The Beatles. Whatever.
Wonder whatever happened to swing music, and whatever styles of music which were popular during and before the great depression.
My grandfather listened to such music for most of his life, to the day he died.
Music styles probably won't die out completely.
Quote from: ggroy;381714Music styles probably won't die out completely.
Neither will vintage role playing styles. :)
Quote from: Thorn Drumheller;381710I just hope that Mearls doesn't touch 5e at all. He's done enough already, if ya know what I mean.
Attorney: Ok, now, Dungeon Master's Guide... show us on your Table of Contents where the bad man touched you...
Quote from: ggroy;381712Too late. He'll turn it a Mongoose version of D&D. :rolleyes:
Considering the good job that Mongoose Publishing has done with
Traveller and
RuneQuest, that may not be a bad thing.
Quote from: Werekoala;381724Attorney: Ok, now, Dungeon Master's Guide... show us on your Table of Contents where the bad man touched you...
Nice....!
Seriously, 5E is nowhere in sight. WotC has too much invested in DDI right now to rock the boat.
As for the rest of the comments....
Never have I seen so much useless, petty, bitter vitriol in a forum thread. I must not be hanging out here often enough. I feel like the only black man at a klu klux clan hoe down.
/exaggerated straw man example off
Quote from: jeff37923;381726Considering the good job that Mongoose Publishing has done with Traveller and RuneQuest, that may not be a bad thing.
Very true....the Traveller Core Rules and Runequest II books are very nicely done.
Quote from: camazotz;381733Very true....the Traveller Core Rules and Runequest II books are very nicely done.
Hopefully the upcoming Elric books will be done just as excellent.
If they turn out to have crappy editing, that will probably be the end of Mongoose Runequest 2 books I'll ever pick up.
Quote from: camazotz;381731As for the rest of the comments....
Never have I seen so much useless, petty, bitter vitriol in a forum thread. I must not be hanging out here often enough. I feel like the only black man at a klu klux clan hoe down.
/exaggerated straw man example off
Standard fare here. A form of entertainment. :pundit:
Quote from: camazotz;381731As for the rest of the comments....
Never have I seen so much useless, petty, bitter vitriol in a forum thread. I must not be hanging out here often enough. I feel like the only black man at a klu klux clan hoe down.
/exaggerated straw man example off
Well, fuck you too, beatch! :D
If only they didn't use the name Dungeons & Dragons for that fantasy rpg game that WOTC currently produces, there won't be any conflict.
Quote from: ggroy;381714Wonder whatever happened to swing music, and whatever styles of music which were popular during and before the great depression.
My grandfather listened to such music for most of his life, to the day he died.
Music styles probably won't die out completely.
There's a radio station in L.A. that play Swing and Big Band music almost exclusively.
I was sleeping in the sun on the beach one day, somewhere between
Newport Beach and
Laguna Beach in Orange County, and a couple sunning nearby had their boombox radio tuned to that station. I remember hearing
Glenn Miller and then the
Andrew Sisters, and then the music was drowned out by the roar of propeller driven aircraft...
I sat up to find out who was flying so low, and there were two aircraft going up the coast, wave skipping, about 10M off the deck just over the coastline flying North. It was a B-17, and a B-26 Marauder. As they droned off into the distance the Andrews Sisters song became audible again, and I experienced a mental lapse and became temporally disoriented for about five minutes, thinking maybe I had skipped back in time about 60 years or so...
Quote from: areola;381751If only they didn't use the name Dungeons & Dragons for that fantasy rpg game that WOTC currently produces, there won't be any conflict.
Megadittos! If they'd just kept the name 'Magic Sword' instead of using this nifty license, so much vitriol could have been used on more constructive purposes.
Ok, maybe not, but there wouldn't be conflict for this, at least.
Quote from: areola;381751If only they didn't use the name Dungeons & Dragons for that fantasy rpg game that WOTC currently produces, there won't be any conflict.
Megadittos on my part as well.
Quote from: Benoist;381782Megadittos on my part as well.
For some reason I read that as Megadoritos and started salivating...
Anyhow, megadittos from here too...
Quote from: Doom;381780Megadittos! If they'd just kept the name 'Magic Sword' instead of using this nifty license, so much vitriol could have been used on more constructive purposes.
Ok, maybe not, but there wouldn't be conflict for this, at least.
My question about the whole thing is how they kept Fantasy Flight from suing them what with selling the Descent: Journeys in the Dark rules without permission :P
But I kid...!
Quote from: Joethelawyer;381783For some reason I read that as Megadoritos and started salivating...
Depends on the size we're talking about. I wouldn't want to be crushed by a giant dorito, personally. :D
Quote from: Joethelawyer;381783For some reason I read that as Megadoritos and started salivating...
Anyhow, megadittos from here too...
You know what? In 2007 when I went to Lake Geneva the grocery store over there by Hwy. 50 was selling Doritos D13 and
my god were those delicious.
They taste(d) like a cheeseburger with extra ketchup and mustard. And a dash of catsup.
Can't find the damn things anywhere, I guess it was an unsuccessful experiment :(
Quote from: Benoist;381786Depends on the size we're talking about. I wouldn't want to be crushed by a giant dorito, personally. :D
While death by Dorito isn't my style, there is a Dorito/death connection for me. I've always said that if the world's ending tomorrow, with apocalyptic floods, tidal waves, volcanoes, etc., I'm going out with a bag of Cool Ranch Doritos in one hand, and bottle of Capt. Morgan in the other, while getting a blowjob from 2 of the hottest escorts my soon-to-be-useless money can buy.
Quote from: Joethelawyer;381790While death by Dorito isn't my style, there is a Dorito/death connection for me. I've always said that if the world's ending tomorrow, with apocalyptic floods, tidal waves, volcanoes, etc., I'm going out with a bag of Cool Ranch Doritos in one hand, and bottle of Capt. Morgan in the other, while getting a blowjob from 2 of the hottest escorts my soon-to-be-useless money can buy.
Sounds good to me. Particularly the escorts part.
Quote from: thedungeondelver;381785My question about the whole thing is how they kept Fantasy Flight from suing them what with selling the Descent: Journeys in the Dark rules without permission :P
But I kid...!
Good one.. Actually, since 4e players say that they only need rules for combat and the rest can be free form roleplayed, how come they never took up Descent? It has nice expansions for wilderness and sea based gameplay as well. It might not have the depth and balance that 4e players want, but it can be done to achieve Wotc's D&D level.
Quote from: areola;381804Good one.. Actually, since 4e players say that they only need rules for combat and the rest can be free form roleplayed, how come they never took up Descent? It has nice expansions for wilderness and sea based gameplay as well. It might not have the depth and balance that 4e players want, but it can be done to achieve Wotc's D&D level.
Actually the campaign rules essentially
make it 4e D&D. Keep and advance characters.
The line is very, very blurry between the "fully expanded" presentation of D:JITD and 4e (and other RPGs). FFG has definitely gone full-bore into boardgame RPGs (as we can see with WHFRP3).
Except - and this is what I find funny - D:JITD's core rules (and expansions, I believe) are all
free...yes, yes they are. So...basically...they're selling you the board and miniatures.
Quote from: ggroy;381738Standard fare here. A form of entertainment. :pundit:
true dat. high brow entertainment.
Quote from: Thorn Drumheller;381911true dat. high brow entertainment.
Only insofar as there is a lot of browbeating.
Quote from: StormBringer;381435The math works fine now? From the people who took three tries to get it right, you can say that unequivocally, the math is fine now. When they claimed they had a mathematician in the first place, and the math was fine in the first iteration. And the advice sounds like you should break it up and not use it as presented.
You are saying this is absolutely not going to get another errata?
I'm saying it works fine now. I said that multiple times, so not sure how it didn't sink in.
It's not perfect, but it works fine.
It works just fine now, but lacks perfection.
It's almost perfect, except maybe not, but is definitely working fine.
THAT is what I am saying.
Quote from: Benoist;381677It's getting worse and worse with times too, as more people either become brainwashed by the games they play now, as opposed to what they were playing in the past, and new people come to the game through iterations like 4e, and don't know shit about what came before.
Anyone who claims the game is brainwashing people into liking it, is probably brainwashed :)
Seriously, that was an inane statement. If it is true, it makes it likely you were brainwashed by a prior game and simply following your own brainwashing. If it is false, it makes you look like a grumpy old guy who cannot handle change. Either way, the statement is inane.
Quote from: Mistwell;382086Anyone who claims the game is brainwashing people into liking it, is probably brainwashed :)
Not what I was saying. Reading comprehension is your friend, Mark.
And I precised this thought later on, in another post on the same page. There. (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=381706&postcount=189)
Quote from: Mistwell;382083I'm saying it works fine now. I said that multiple times, so not sure how it didn't sink in.
It's not perfect, but it works fine.
It works just fine now, but lacks perfection.
It's almost perfect, except maybe not, but is definitely working fine.
THAT is what I am saying.
So, when the next errata comes out, or the 4.5 mid-version upgrade scraps the system, or 5e does it completely differently, it will then not have been fine, or it was still fine and WotC are bad designers? Were you on the forefront of pointing out the mistakes in the first two iterations, or did those work fine also?
Rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic. :rant:
Quote from: Mistwell;382083I'm saying it works fine now. I said that multiple times, so not sure how it didn't sink in.
It's not perfect, but it works fine.
It works just fine now, but lacks perfection.
It's almost perfect, except maybe not, but is definitely working fine.
THAT is what I am saying.
I'm a scientist. And one of the important questions to ask about
any statement is how it stacks up against the Null Hypothesis. And you should ask something similar about any
rule you are considering implementing. The question you should ask is not "Does this rule work well
enough?" because there is no real value for what "enough" might entail. The question you should ask for a rule is simply "Does this rule work
better than
not having a rule?"
Without having a rule for Skill Challenges, what you would do is ask everyone what they wanted their character to do, and have everyone make a skill check to determine how well they did those things. Then depending upon the success and relevance of their actions, you would have stuff happen. That is the fate of "skill challenge" situations,
in the absence of any rules on the subject. So. Do the Skill Challenge rules work better than
that? If so,
how? What do they
do that is superior to just having all the players say what they are going to do and make a skill check to determine how well they do those things?
The Skill Challenge rules are obviously something the people at WotC have thought needs a lot of work. To date they have not only sold two chapters in two different hardcover books, but also issued errata, and Mike Mearls alone released no less than
ten separate Skill Challenge overhauls as paid articles for Dragon. Each major adventure has a "non-standard" Skill Challenge, almost as if they are testing multiple wildly different skill challenge systems on the public in anticipation of yet another hard-back overhaul in Essentials. Certainly, if you bought each piece of Skill Challenge rethinking that the WotC design staff has sold, you have now purchased new and improved (or at least changed) Skill Challenge mechanics more than
twenty times in the last two years.
So. This time it's different I guess. Why is the latest and greatest version better than all the other versions they have sold to the public? Why is it better than not having a rule at all?
-Frank
The math is clearly off in a lot of things, not just skill challenges (which are just a bad idea, bad math or not). I've been looking at monsters lately and there are some that are just clearly better than others at the same level and even at the same role. If the math was right, you wouldn't have to guess whether or not this monster will actually be a challenge. It's really not better than the CR system in 3e.
Quote from: mhensley;382229The math is clearly off in a lot of things, not just skill challenges (which are just a bad idea, bad math or not). I've been looking at monsters lately and there are some that are just clearly better than others at the same level and even at the same role. If the math was right, you wouldn't have to guess whether or not this monster will actually be a challenge. It's really not better than the CR system in 3e.
This is true. And to an extent unavoidable. Even though 4e
tries to avoid it, the fact is that there are powers that have non-numeric effects. Like effects to stun a player for a turn. Now believe it or not, causing players to lose turns actually
is something you can fit into a mathematical model. The players will take a certain number of turns before the enemies are defeated, so delaying player turns gives Team Monster extra attacks before they are defeated. Those attacks in turn have value, and so you can get a valid answer.
But that's really
hard, and in a sense varies based on the value of the attacks the other monsters it is banded with. So I am willing to accept that certain powers, especially powers that synergize with other monsters, are going to be sufficiently difficult to evaluate as to render it plausible that monsters that have them are going to end up being radically better or worse than other monsters of the same level. Thus, I'm pretty much willing to accept that the Lamia and Goblin Hexer of 4e being wildly overpowered is something that the 4e designers don't have to have any shame over. They have weird powers, they are much scarier than other monsters of their level. Other monsters have weird powers and end up sucking goat nodules. It happens. 3e has plenty of monsters fitting both descriptions floating around.
What I don't get is how you can get pure thug monsters in the Soldier or Brute class that basically just run up and hit people that are wildly disparate in power. Even at low level, the Orc Berserker (level 4 Brute) is slightly but noticeably more powerful than the Human Berserker (also a level 4 Brute). That's weird. By the time you go up a tier and compare the Level 18 Soldier "Bodak Reaver" to the Level 18 Soldier "Fire Giant" the comparison is just incredibly stark. The Bodak Reaver is much
much more dangerous. It does way more damage and is in many ways harder to kill. Again, that's weird because they were very clearly generated with the same formula.
But larger issues certain loom than inter-monster balance. The formula
itself isn't spitting out the right kinds of numbers. That Level 18 Fire Giant hits for about 20 points of damage. You know what an Astral Seal
looks like at 18th level? That much damage is a
joke. On the other side, that AC of 34 is so high compared to what 18th level Paladins actually get on their attack rolls that WotC had to make up an "everyone gets +2 to-hit" rule just to keep those swords from falling off the RNG entirely. Those 18th level fights take a
long time, and yet the outcome is not in doubt and never really
feels like it is in doubt.
And that boggles my mind. Because that is seriously pocket calculator stuff. I can forgive the deep philosophy failures that cause people to miss things like "Vexing Cloud on the Goblin Hexer can transform almost any match into a grind fest like you've never seen because it essentially doubles the hit points of all the monsters, albeit in a pretty weird way." The fact that players and monsters moving up to each other and autoattacking doesn't give the right kinds of results is something I cannot forgive.
-Frank
Who cares about this stuff? Balance is for wargames, not rpgs.
First off, I'm just going to address the original topic, since everyone seems to have ignored it - anyone who thinks that people moving around is evidence of anything in a large company has clearly never worked at a large company. Having worked at larger companies before, I can tell you that top managers and executives moving around is absolutely par for the course. It happens constantly. Larger companies are always undergoing almost constant re-orgs.
As to the same old cranky old bastard crowd yet again taking the opportunity to complain about how much they hate 4e and it is ruining the gaming scene for them, I can honestly say I don't get them either. I can get not liking 4e, but most of these guy also hate 3e and 2e.
Which makes me wonder why they give a fuck about 4e at all. I mean, the games they like haven't been in print for over 20 fucking years. So how can 4e impact their gaming at all? I mean, that ship sailed clear the fuck back in 1989.
I can get why someone who liked 3e would complain about 4e - WotC totally fucked them over. I just don't get the "OD&D is the best!" crowd, or the "Nothing after AD&D is real D&D!" crowd.
I mean, seriously, do you really expect the company to go - "you know what, instead of chasing after that profitable youth market, let's focus on trying to appease a small group of old men who haven't liked, or possibly even bought, anything since 1987". 'Cause that sounds like a pretty shitty business plan to me.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;382235Who cares about this stuff? Balance is for wargames, not rpgs.
Balance and mathematical perfection were selling points of 4th edition D&D.
They used slogans like:
"The Math Just Works."
and
"Monsters Scale Perfectly"
repeatedly throughout flakking the game. Had they delivered on that, it would indeed have been something to celebrate. After all, if I want to play a gleefully unbalanced game where any monster could back end into TPKing the party I could just play
any other game ever written. Having the 4e people double down on the promise that the back end of the math was so tight that the DM didn't have to mess with it at all and then not actually deliver on that is pretty weird.
I don't lambast Runequest for having obviously unbalanced options, because they don't care and never promised otherwise. 4e D&D
did promise balanced options and smooth scaling, so them not delivering would be equivalent to Dark Heresy failing to deliver Grimdark or Toon failing to deliver pies and anvils. So yes, I feel very confident in lambasting 4e D&D for its mathematical failings. They represent a very clear betrayal of their audience.
-Frank
Quote from: FrankTrollman;382239Balance and mathematical perfection were selling points of 4th edition D&D.
They used slogans like:
"The Math Just Works."
and
"Monsters Scale Perfectly"
repeatedly throughout flakking the game. Had they delivered on that, it would indeed have been something to celebrate. After all, if I want to play a gleefully unbalanced game where any monster could back end into TPKing the party I could just play any other game ever written. Having the 4e people double down on the promise that the back end of the math was so tight that the DM didn't have to mess with it at all and then not actually deliver on that is pretty weird.
I don't lambast Runequest for having obviously unbalanced options, because they don't care and never promised otherwise. 4e D&D did promise balanced options and smooth scaling, so them not delivering would be equivalent to Dark Heresy failing to deliver Grimdark or Toon failing to deliver pies and anvils. So yes, I feel very confident in lambasting 4e D&D for its mathematical failings. They represent a very clear betrayal of their audience.
Just like politicians actually keeping promises. :rolleyes:
Quote from: jgants;382236Which makes me wonder why they give a fuck about 4e at all. I mean, the games they like haven't been in print for over 20 fucking years. So how can 4e impact their gaming at all? I mean, that ship sailed clear the fuck back in 1989.
Some people never got over it, and will NEVER get over it to the day they die.
Some may think that the world of their youth was completely destroyed by it.
Quote from: jgants;382236I mean, seriously, do you really expect the company to go - "you know what, instead of chasing after that profitable youth market, let's focus on trying to appease a small group of old men who haven't liked, or possibly even bought, anything since 1987".
Some people are actually narcissistic enough to actually believe something like this.
I don't know, I've often thought that if you were chasing the youth market you'd, you know, try to make the game easier and more approachable.
4e might be a step in the right direction except, oh wait, the powers and feats spagetti code thing.
Quote from: FrankTrollman;382231On the other side, that AC of 34 is so high compared to what 18th level Paladins actually get on their attack rolls that WotC had to make up an "everyone gets +2 to-hit" rule just to keep those swords from falling off the RNG entirely.
Prime stat starts at 20; +1 at levels 4, 8, 11, 14, and 18 = 25. That's a +7.
Half level = +9.
Proficiency bonus = +3.
Magic weapon = +4.
7 + 9 + 3 + 4 = 23.
34 - 23 = 11 or better to hit, or 50%.
Quote from: mhensley;382229The math is clearly off in a lot of things, not just skill challenges (which are just a bad idea, bad math or not). I've been looking at monsters lately and there are some that are just clearly better than others at the same level and even at the same role. If the math was right, you wouldn't have to guess whether or not this monster will actually be a challenge.
Some people are already complaining about 4E D&D at epic level being broken, albeit on the easy side where the players are having a cakewalk.
http://www.enworld.org/forum/4e-discussion/276960-wizards-coasts-epic-adventures-2.html
They made epic level too easy?
Quote from: ggroy;382250Some people are already complaining about 4E D&D at epic level being broken, albeit on the easy side where the players are having a cakewalk.
http://www.enworld.org/forum/4e-discussion/276960-wizards-coasts-epic-adventures-2.html
They made epic level too easy?
Look out. Some 4rries are about to tell you that complaining about players taking too long to kill Epic monsters
and complaining about epic tier being too easy somehow "cancels out" or involves shifting goalposts or some. The fact is: both are true.
Let's look at the player's side. You're 23rd level. When you bust out an Epic Tier encounter attack power as a Sorcerer, you get... 3d6 + Static modifiers damage to a small burst. Seriously, that's it. Or you could use an at-will that did 2d6 + Static modifiers damage to the same burst. Now, you're Epic Tier, so you have a lot of static modifiers. But the attack itself is delivering about 10 points of damage. On a
striker character. If it hits. Meanwhile, the 23rd level sample encounter is a Fire Titan that has nearly four hundred hit points. One Efreet Cinderlord who has 169, and three Blood Fiends at 220 hit points a piece. The combined enemy totals therefore are 1227 hit points. You are a Storm Sorcerer Halfling Demigod, so you have a
lot[/i[ of static bonuses to throw around. You get to add your Charisma mod and your Dex mod to damage, you have a magic implement, you have an epic level dingus of doing more damage, you have one of those feat gimicks that lets you do an extra five and so on. And your 23rd level Encounter Spell still does about 40 points of damage per target. If it hits. Even if you were able to spam that indefinitely (which you are not), and you always hit (which you don't), and you could always fit two enemies under the blast (which you can't), and everyone on your team was doing that much damage (which they are not), you'd plow through those assholes in 4 turns. In reality you only hit three quarters of the time, you're forced to shift to smaller attacks pretty rapidly, you'll often be targeting only one enemy, and you do a shit tonne more damage than the Cleric does in any case. You'd be lucky to wipe the enemy squad out in ten turns.
But from the Monster's standpoint, it's way worse than that. That Blood Fiend only hits for 2d8+10. That's 19 points of damage if it hits. And it is not likely to hit. Our Halfling friend wears frickin Leather Armor, and he has an AC of 39 just for that. As in, before investing in any defenses at all. The Bloodfiend has +28 to-hit. He hits the most fragile party member on an 11+ before counting any of his equipment or doohickies and before any of the defensive specialists have done anything. And Clerics give out 10 points or more of regeneration to the whole party just for getting up in the morning. Screw the number of rounds the enemy is going to take to liquidate the party, they can't make progress at all. It takes them infinity turns to wipe the party. Not because the PCs will wipe them out before they succeed in dropping any player (although that is true), but simply because round to round healing is on average more than their round to round damage output.
-Frank
Quote from: jgants;382236As to the same old cranky old bastard crowd yet again taking the opportunity to complain about how much they hate 4e and it is ruining the gaming scene for them, I can honestly say I don't get them either...
I mean, seriously, do you really expect the company to go - "you know what, instead of chasing after that profitable youth market, let's focus on trying to appease a small group of old men who haven't liked, or possibly even bought, anything since 1987". 'Cause that sounds like a pretty shitty business plan to me.
I'm going to save the link to this kick-ass post. It's applicable to several threads a week on this site.
Quote from: FrankTrollman;382239Balance and mathematical perfection were selling points of 4th edition D&D...
So yes, I feel very confident in lambasting 4e D&D for its mathematical failings. They represent a very clear betrayal of their audience.
Failure, maybe. Betrayal? I doubt they fucked up the math intentionally.
Fact is, the goal of making a complex, mathematically rational and balanced RPG is delusional. I don't know if it's the WotC staff who were more delusional in setting the goal, or the customers who were more delusional for thinking they could pull it off.
But it sounds like it works enough for most players to enjoy it. And if the gear-heads are disappointed, maybe it's better if they lower their expectations of the system rather than let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
Quote from: FrankTrollman;382261But from the Monster's standpoint, it's way worse than that. That Blood Fiend only hits for 2d8+10. That's 19 points of damage if it hits. And it is not likely to hit. Our Halfling friend wears frickin Leather Armor, and he has an AC of 39 just for that. As in, before investing in any defenses at all. The Bloodfiend has +28 to-hit. He hits the most fragile party member on an 11+ before counting any of his equipment or doohickies and before any of the defensive specialists have done anything. And Clerics give out 10 points or more of regeneration to the whole party just for getting up in the morning. Screw the number of rounds the enemy is going to take to liquidate the party, they can't make progress at all. It takes them infinity turns to wipe the party. Not because the PCs will wipe them out before they succeed in dropping any player (although that is true), but simply because round to round healing is on average more than their round to round damage output.
Geeze, I wonder what would happen if the GM decided to toss in a monster that attacks that halfling rogue's Fortitude?
Quote from: Haffrung;382263Fact is, the goal of making a complex, mathematically rational and balanced RPG is delusional. I don't know if it's the WotC staff who were more delusional in setting the goal, or the customers who were more delusional for thinking they could pull it off.
Dilbert style "design by committee" turns everything into shit. Too many cooks in the kitchen.
The more money and resources are spent on producing something, the bigger pile of shit one ends up with in the end. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Haffrung;382263But it sounds like it works enough for most players to enjoy it. And if the gear-heads are disappointed, maybe it's better if they lower their expectations of the system rather than let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
Sigh. That is how all conversations with 4rries always go:
4rries: But the Math Works! It's more balanced than 3rd edition!
Response: But the Math
doesn't work. Ari Marmell saying that he found the math to work flawlessly doesn't mean it actually does. Hell, he was even lying when he said he didn't have a financial interest in 4e D&D's success. Let's do some actual number crunching. [does number crunching] See? The Math doesn't work.
4rries: Why do you have to be such a downer? You can have fun playing
any game. I enjoy playing 4e, and the majority agrees with me. Majorty rules, 4e is fun and you're wrong.
Response: WotC's
own marketing flak says that there are 1.5 million 4e D&D players. The
same report says that there are 24 million "lapsed" D&D players. With "lapsed" players including every D&D gamer who doesn't play 4e D&D (including those that continue to play 2nd edition AD&D or 3rd edition D&D). So no, the majority
doesn't like 4e. Fun isn't a democracy or anything, but if it was, 4e would very clearly have been voted off the island.
4rries: But 4e D&D is good
enough. I don't need it to be any better than it is.
Response: Then why are
you talking about it? Things can always be better, and discussing their flaws is a great way to move in that direction. But in any case, discussing whether something is "good enough" is an empty statement. Good enough to
what? For something to be "enough" of anything it needs to be compared
to something. And then we are right back to things being
better or
worse.
[/list]
It's pretty frustrating. Then you got 4rries like Thanlis who come in swinging by picking at really tiny nits that don't make any difference.
QuoteFact is, the goal of making a complex, mathematically rational and balanced RPG is delusional. I don't know if it's the WotC staff who were more delusional in setting the goal, or the customers who were more delusional for thinking they could pull it off.
This is not really true. D&D started as a wargame. And 4e is pretty much a wargame again. Warhammer 40k's balance issues are
bad, but it's not like people can't solve them. Multiple turn mathhammering is entirely doable. It's a bit tedious, but we are talking about
gamers. There are plenty of them that would sit around and crunch numbers all day for free.
Making a complex and mathematically rational wargame is nothing like delusional. It's an achievable and laudable goal. And with RPGs being closely related to wargames, it's not at all unreasonable to treat them similarly.
-Frank
Quote from: Haffrung;382263Fact is, the goal of making a complex, mathematically rational and balanced RPG is delusional. I don't know if it's the WotC staff who were more delusional in setting the goal, or the customers who were more delusional for thinking they could pull it off.
But here's the thing: while the 3e system by-and-large worked pretty well, it also had some fucked up math that really killed you under the right circumstances. This was widely acknowledged by fans and haters of the system alike.
Everyone knew that things started to get really swingy at the upper mid-levels of 3e play and nearly broke completely at high levels. The 4e marketing certainly made a great deal of hay over all of 3e's mathematical frailties, both big and small, with the promise of delivering something much better.
But at the end of the 3e period the design community had actually a very good handle on what broke, why it broke, and what might be done to fix or at least alleviate those problems. See, for example, the fantastic
Trailblazer game for but one way to patch the system while retaining the core engine.
But instead of building on the existing knowledge base, the 4e designers basically chucked the whole core of 3e and started over with a completely new framework. The theory was that because the design team was packed with real mathematicians and no longer had to worry about maintaining legacy code, they would erect a system that would work perfectly all the way from level 1 to 30.
But what they seemed to have built instead was another Tower of Babel. In 4e, high level play, encounter balance, and length of combat all seem to be just as problematic as they ever were in 3e. Just two years in, as a result of the DDI "Everything is Core" philosophy, 4e feels just as bloated as 3e ever did under the weight of 10^9 third party supplements.
So while 4e might have made many strides forward, it seems to have taken just as many steps back.
My lament is, wouldn't they have been far better off just working with that solid but flawed 3e core, rather than building a completely new engine complete with entirely new problems?
Quote from: Thanlis;382247Prime stat starts at 20; +1 at levels 4, 8, 11, 14, and 18 = 25. That's a +7.
Half level = +9.
Proficiency bonus = +3.
Magic weapon = +4.
7 + 9 + 3 + 4 = 23.
34 - 23 = 11 or better to hit, or 50%.
Whoa, whoa, whoa, wait a second. I thought optimization was *BAD*.
You're assuming the paladin starts with an 20 in his attack stat (good grief!), assuming he uses a +3 proficiency weapon, AND assuming he gets the highest plus possible on his weapon, avoiding weapons with actual powers in favor of an 'amazing' another +1.
That's 3 different traps to avoid, just to get to 50%.
If the whole party falls into those traps (and, you've argued that it's ok to do so), the 'trap' party would be less than 40% as effective as a party built like this optimized paladin you have. In other words, a non-optimized party would take 2.5 times as along as a party built along your 'bad' paladin to defeat a fairly easy encounter (i.e., over five hours).
And, of course, still overlooked the fact that the 'to hit' is irrelevant, since the monsters by RAW can't do enough to damage to matter anyway.
Quote from: FrankTrollman;382272Sigh. That is how all conversations with 4rries always go:
Well, I've never played 4e. But I've played a lot of wargames. And a fair number of RPGs.
Quote from: FrankTrollman;382272Making a complex and mathematically rational wargame is nothing like delusional. It's an achievable and laudable goal. And with RPGs being closely related to wargames, it's not at all unreasonable to treat them similarly.
RPGs aren't wargames. They introduce an enormous number of variables, from levels to classes to magic items to huge lists of skills and special abilities, that make it virtually impossible to balance everything. As I said upthread, I'll believe it can be done when I see it.
If WotC have tied their wagon to the gearhead crowd, then god help them. Because the only way they'll ever achieve mechanical balance is if they truncate gameplay to the narrow confines of a tactical wargame. Even then, with all the classes, monsters, spells, magic items, skills, special abilities, not to mention levelling in an ongoing campaign, it would be by far the most complex tactical wargame system every created.
Quote from: Garnfellow;382276The theory was that because the design team was packed with real mathematicians and no longer had to worry about maintaining legacy code, they would erect a system that would work perfectly all the way from level 1 to 30.
What person(s) on the 4E D&D design team, had training as a mathematician? (Or somebody whom had training in a highly mathematical area, such as engineering or the hard sciences?)
Quote from: Thanlis;382265Geeze, I wonder what would happen if the GM decided to toss in a monster that attacks that halfling rogue's Fortitude?
As I'm sure you're aware, it would still be completely irrelevant. Even if the expected damage flat out triples (it won't) and none of the defenders do anything to protect the halfing in this case (that won't happen either), and the halfing doesn't use his racial ability or defensive powers (he will), the cleric's healing word *alone* easily cures 60 points of damage a pop, and he gets three of those every encounter. These alone will undo 6 rounds of monster damage, just by using minor actions.
It'll take 4 more rounds after that for the halfling to run out of hit points. Oh wait, negative bloodied kills. So, 5 rounds on top of the 6.
Throw in the cleric or someone using some healing abilities that take standard actions, or some self-heal abilities, or some defensive powers, and even your worst-case scenario has the monster unable to kill a player until many rounds after the players have killed the monster.
This really is grossly underestimating the healing and defensive powers a party at this level has. Any fight that can threaten a party to the point that a character might die must, by design, take many rounds just to slog through all those powers (keep in mind 4e is designed around "all powers always work", especially when it comes to healing, so there are very few ways to circumvent those powers other than to just trigger them and deal with it).
Now, if all five monsters manage to maintain continued focus fire and the halfling goes AFK
and the party lags out for awhile, then it is possible for a character to die in less than half a dozen rounds. But these aren't serious possibilities in a tabletop game.
Quote from: Doom;382278Whoa, whoa, whoa, wait a second. I thought optimization was *BAD*.
You're assuming the paladin starts with an 20 in his attack stat (good grief!), assuming he uses a +3 proficiency weapon, AND assuming he gets the highest plus possible on his weapon, avoiding weapons with actual powers in favor of an 'amazing' another +1.
Actually, I'm just working with the numbers Frank used for his skill challenge arguments.
I'm also not avoiding weapons with actual powers. A magic weapon +4 is a level 16 item. We're talking a level 18 paladin, so there's no reason why he shouldn't have at least an equal level magic weapon.
Quote from: FrankTrollman;382239Balance and mathematical perfection were selling points of 4th edition D&D.
They used slogans like:
"The Math Just Works."
and
"Monsters Scale Perfectly"
I agree. That's been the mistake done time and time again for the past decade.
I'm with Kyle on this. Some amount of mathematical consistency is necessary for a game. The obsession over a math that would work in every single circumstance (aka "game balance", which is really meant to say "rules balance", the game NOT being the rules, and the rules NOT the entirety of the game), with any player, GM, all the time, not only strangles the game's design, it ends up strangling the imagination of the users who dedicate more and more of their creativity to the act of retrofiting their original ideas into the mathematical/rules model rather than just run with them and manage the game on the spot, as the social activity it is.
Great role playing games raise great players and GMs to think and play outside the box. Poor games force them to remain within their artificial boundaries.
Quote from: Haffrung;382280RPGs aren't wargames. They introduce an enormous number of variables, from levels to classes to magic items to huge lists of skills and special abilities, that make it virtually impossible to balance everything. As I said upthread, I'll believe it can be done when I see it.
If WotC have tied their wagon to the gearhead crowd, then god help them. Because the only way they'll ever achieve mechanical balance is if they truncate gameplay to the narrow confines of a tactical wargame. Even then, with all the classes, monsters, spells, magic items, skills, special abilities, not to mention levelling in an ongoing campaign, it would be by far the most complex tactical wargame system every created.
End result: a "Rube Goldberg machine" in the form of an tabletop rpg game.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rube_Goldberg_Machine
It's funny that he would mention the truncation of the game, because that's absolutely happened.
There's very little that can happen in a game of 4e that matters past 5 minutes. Spells like Charm Person, capable of lasting 24 hours or more (above and beyond the openness of adjudicating the effects of the charm), are gone, as are pretty much all spells and effects that could interact with the world in a way that only a goldfish wouldn't notice.
Granted, there are rituals with longer effects, but even these are restricted to very limited, very easily adjudicated effects, eg "a door opens between point A and point B" or "character that can no longer take actions is now able to take actions".
And even with the massive removal of nearly everything that would require interaction with the game world, we still have a fairly complicated game, but I don't think I'm calling it the most complicated wargame ever created (I recall a few Napoleonic games that come closer to fitting the bill, with a few WW2 games that also might be enough).
Weird how it continues to rule the universe and only manages to annoy the utterly non-involved though.
Quote from: Abyssal Maw;382311Weird how it continues to rule the universe and only manages to annoy the utterly non-involved though.
(http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f399/myfask/258Troll_spray.jpg)
Quote from: jeff37923;382312(http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f399/myfask/258Troll_spray.jpg)
Christ, don't bring that stuff in here! There'd be nothing left of the place!
Quote from: Fifth Element;382318Christ, don't bring that stuff in here! There'd be nothing left of the place!
I resent that remABAAGLAHBLHAGMY EYES JESUS AUGH THE STINGING I'M OUTTA HERE
Quote from: Abyssal Maw;382311Weird how it continues to rule the universe and only manages to annoy the utterly non-involved though.
What do you mean by "it"? Are you talking about the version of the game that is only played by 1 out of every 17 fans, or something else?
And wrong, anyway. I'm plenty involved, running two campaigns (just finished up Wittgenstein in the Warhammer-esque campaign). But I still can't help but notice how much just can't be modeled in 4e.
Quote from: jrients;382331What do you mean by "it"? Are you talking about the version of the game that is only played by 1 out of every 17 fans, or something else?
Well Jeff, by and large, the other 16 are not really playing anything anymore, or they seem to have the good sense not to complain about stuff that has no effect on them.
The rest of you guys are just stuck- what are you doing? Is this even healthy for you? I get the mentally ill dudes, the neckbeard with the pig-eyes, the obsessed mathematical guy. But for people like you.. how in the heck does it even matter?
Quote from: Abyssal Maw;382337Well Jeff, by and large, the other 16 are not really playing anything anymore, or they seem to have the good sense not to complain about stuff that has no effect on them.
Some people really love to bitch and complain about anything and everything, regardless of whether it has any effect on them or not. :pundit:
Some philosophers and writers write in this manner too. These days the same sort of behavior is exhibited for everyone to see, on those 24 hour news channels.
Quote from: Abyssal Maw;382337But for people like you.. how in the heck does it even matter?
You might as well try to take about English literature without Shakespeare or astrophysics without gravity as talk about RPGs without talking about D&D. What makes you sure it doesn't matter to those of us who aren't playing?
Quote from: Abyssal Maw;382311Weird how it continues to rule the universe and only manages to annoy the utterly non-involved though.
Hey, I had to suffer through two additional evenings of 4e! Tha gives me enough of a stake to bicht and moan, I hope.
Also: burst bubbles of Warblade expectations have left scars.
Also: 4e is so RELEVANT, as you point out, that there´s no way around it. Certainly more healthy to shake my fist against current D&D rather than hunting IRRELEVANT forgers?
Quote from: Settembrini;382342Also: 4e is so RELEVANT, as you point out, that there´s no way around it. Certainly more healthy to shake my fist against current D&D rather than hunting IRRELEVANT forgers?
Bigger bang for the buck, in attacking the "big gorilla" than the small fish.
Quote from: jrients;382341You might as well try to take about English literature without Shakespeare or astrophysics without gravity as talk about RPGs without talking about D&D. What makes you sure it doesn't matter to those of us who aren't playing?
Explain how it does, and if the answer isn't totally fucking pathetic, I'll probably concede. I'm a reasonable man!
Also, if I don't concede, you'll know why...See, I understand that it bothers you guys. There's like a Melvin-esque fellow at the local shop who literally has to avert his eyes from the 4E section because it hurts his feelings or whatever. But I don't get it. It's a game. People are enjoying it. Maybe it's not for you.. hey, that's fine. But then again, other than your well-entrenched position as a dude on the internet, why would that even matter.
The abuse is slung around on a daily..sometimes hourly basis.. and really, it's always the same 4 or 5 guys just agreeing with each other and validating each other. And if anyone says anything says anything back, I have jeffy's feelings so hurt he has to post a 600pixel gif. I mean, exactly how fucking wounded are you guys that achieving absolutely ironclad lock-step completely coordinated grievances is so important? Not everyone has to like the same stuff, but this is ridiculous and you'd think after two years someone would take a half second and go "whoah, guess it's just not the game for me.." and move on.
Grognard is the new swine.
Quote from: Abyssal Maw;382337I get the mentally ill dudes, the neckbeard with the pig-eyes, the obsessed mathematical guy. But for people like you.. how in the heck does it even matter?
This is pathetic, Peter. Not only are you insisting on curve-balling your attacks in a stupidly passive-aggressive manner, but these attacks are like insults thrown on an elementary school yard to impress classmates. What I am supposed to do now, getting all upset at you and call you names too? Jesus Christ, man. Grow up.
I think the fact that some at WotC have noticed that there is a sizable portion of players who aren't happy with the current edition is enough of a justification. If they feel it's in their best interests, they'll move to try and bring those people back into the fold by catering to their interests.
There's sure as hell no guarantee Wizards will listen, and maybe some people can be obnoxious about it, but it's better than shutting up if you feel the game you used to like is going in the wrong direction.
If the friggin' video-game industry can cater to the whims of a "significant minority" via internet forums, then Wizards can sure as hell hear and feel any grumblings because we're on a much smaller isle.
Quote from: Abyssal Maw;382337But for people like you.. how in the heck does it even matter?
The only reason I can see it mattering is if you have plan on putting together a game group with a bunch of people you don't currently play with, and you're afraid you might have to settle for playing a game you don't like much. Or something like that.
But if you don't play 4E. And you don't plan on playing 4E. And you already have a version of D&D that you like and play... then bitching about 4E is just a way to vent some sort of more generalized unhappiness. Maybe that the world is passing you by. Or other people don't like the things you like and it hurts your feelings. Or something.
Quote from: Benoist;382345This is pathetic, Peter. Not only are you insisting on curve-balling your attacks in a stupidly passive-aggressive manner, but these attacks are like insults thrown on an elementary school yard to impress classmates. What I am supposed to do now, getting all upset at you and call you names too? Jesus Christ, man. Grow up.
You forget, Peter is only here to disrupt any conversation about 4E that he deems unflattering. It's a zealot thing, we wouldn't understand.
He´ll be more fun once 5e hits the market, and we are all playing the same game again!
Quote from: StormBringer;382171So, when the next errata comes out, or the 4.5 mid-version upgrade scraps the system, or 5e does it completely differently, it will then not have been fine, or it was still fine and WotC are bad designers? Were you on the forefront of pointing out the mistakes in the first two iterations, or did those work fine also?
It will still have been fine. Since it is not perfect, WOTC could make it better still in the future. But that does not mean it is somehow not fine right now, or that failure to make it perfect right now is a sign they are bad designers.
You seem to be equating "lacking absolute perfection" with "proof of bad designers". It's a silly and extremist position. A rule can be fine, without being perfect. I'd say most rules in most games (even great games) are fine, but not perfect. And that's OK.
For example, I think 3.0 was a fine set of rules. It was not perfect, and 3.5 improved on it, but that does not mean the 3.0 designers were bad designers. Same goes for Pathfinder. I think Pathfinder improves on the 3.5 rules, but that does not mean the 3.5 rules were not fine, or the that it was made by bad designers.
The first iteration of Skill Challenges did not work fine. It had problems. I don't know if I was "in the forefront" in expressing that concern, and I am not sure how one would measure "forefront" or be concerned with it. But, I did speak up initially and say it was not working fine at first.
Now though it does work fine. Have you tried them?
Quote from: FrankTrollman;382272Sigh. That is how all conversations with 4rries always go:
At the point where you can write that sentence without laughing at yourself, you've failed.
Quote from: Settembrini;382359He´ll be more fun once 5e hits the market, and we are all playing the same game again!
You know it's funny, but if and when a 5E ever appears, that will probably be true. Because I think what actually happened is
some people took a very strong public stand against 4E
at the moment of the announcement, and are now entrenched. They can't go back, it will look like they switched political parties.
But at the moment a new edition comes out, you can all declare victory and get down to the weighty business of figuring out when to use your Dailies and healing surges. Which is fine with me. :D
Quote from: ggroy;382339Some people really love to bitch and complain about anything and everything, regardless of whether it has any effect on them or not. :pundit:
Some philosophers and writers write in this manner too. These days the same sort of behavior is exhibited for everyone to see, on those 24 hour news channels.
Either your posts are getting better, or I am learning to enjoy what you post, or some other option I have not considered.
Quote from: Benoist;382345This is pathetic, Peter. Not only are you insisting on curve-balling your attacks in a stupidly passive-aggressive manner, but these attacks are like insults thrown on an elementary school yard to impress classmates. What I am supposed to do now, getting all upset at you and call you names too? Jesus Christ, man. Grow up.
It looked aggressive, not passive. And, he didn't call you names, unless you are one of those things he described (mentally ill, neckbeard with pig-eyes, or obsessed mathematical guy), in which case that would explain your overreaction.
Quote from: Abyssal Maw;382364You know it's funny, but if and when a 5E ever appears, that will probably be true. Because I think what actually happened is some people took a very strong public stand against 4E at the moment of the announcement, and are now entrenched. They can't go back, it will look like they switched political parties.
But at the moment a new edition comes out, you can all declare victory and get down to the weighty business of figuring out when to use your Dailies and healing surges. Which is fine with me. :D
Uh, well, I´m 1) assuming 5e will go back to being D&D, special power & spell-wise.
and 2) might even 4e in the future, if my current campaign screws up during their time-travelling. Every era of the fundamental presents of the prime materials are linked to 3.5, whereas other eras have matching rulessets, with the Fundamental Present of Greyhawk being the benchmark. Those future eras of possible tomorrows where one of the villains gets his will is 4e-(meta)physics.
Quote from: Abyssal Maw;382344The abuse is slung around on a daily..sometimes hourly basis.. and really, it's always the same 4 or 5 guys just agreeing with each other and validating each other. And if anyone says anything says anything back, I have jeffy's feelings so hurt he has to post a 600pixel gif. I mean, exactly how fucking wounded are you guys that achieving absolutely ironclad lock-step completely coordinated grievances is so important? Not everyone has to like the same stuff, but this is ridiculous and you'd think after two years someone would take a half second and go "whoah, guess it's just not the game for me.." and move on.
Around here the abuse comes from all parties on all topics, so I kinda think it's you what needs to shut up or put on that point. And I'm not asking everyone to like the same stuff. People want to play 4e? Fine as hell by me. That has nothing to do with why I follow threads like this one or the Skill Challenges one. I think WotC is more often than not yanking all our chains. You don't care about that? Fine. I do.
Quote from: Mistwell;382367It looked aggressive, not passive. And, he didn't call you names, unless you are one of those things he described (mentally ill, neckbeard with pig-eyes, or obsessed mathematical guy), in which case that would explain your overreaction.
Overreaction? You need to get out more, Mark.
Quote from: Abyssal Maw;382364You know it's funny, but if and when a 5E ever appears, that will probably be true. Because I think what actually happened is some people took a very strong public stand against 4E at the moment of the announcement, and are now entrenched. They can't go back, it will look like they switched political parties.
But at the moment a new edition comes out, you can all declare victory and get down to the weighty business of figuring out when to use your Dailies and healing surges. Which is fine with me. :D
People aren't nearly as entrenched as you make them out to be in your head.
Indeed, I know I had no problem switching political parties...and switched again once I realized there was more than two choices (forgive me, I made my first choice when I was very young).
With 4e, I knew it wasn't D&D as soon as I opened the books, but that didn't turn me off--I had some real problems with D&D, every version, since every version had some pretty serious problems once you got into mid/high levels, sometimes earlier if everyone didn't agree to the 'don't be a jerk' rule. Yes, "A good DM..." and all that, and I "good DM" 'ed my way around the problems, but the issues were still there.
So, I was excited to play an RPG that, as claimed, didn't have nearly as many issues (ok, they claimed no issues at all, but I'm old enough to know puffery now). But, after playing 4e for nigh 2 years, I had to admit, much as with my political affiliations, I was overly optimistic about what I was told.
But when 4.5/Essentials/"Peace in Our Time" or whatever they want to call it comes out, I'll give it a fair look, plenty of room for improvement, after all.
Quote from: FrankTrollman;382239Balance and mathematical perfection were selling points of 4th edition D&D.
That's nice. And pictures of h4wt chixxorz were the selling points of a whole stack of
other games. That
still doesn't have anything to do with rpgs. You're confusing advertising with content, with the actual point of the thing.
h4wt chixxorz are for porn. Game balance is for wargames. Roleplaying games are neither of those, so those things are irrelevant, even if unscrupulous game companies sometimes use them in their advertising. Do you write angrily to the deodorant company when you use their product and skinny young models
don't fall at your feet?
Roleplaying games shouldn't be balanced, because roleplaying games are about
imagination It's not chess. Imbalance means that sometimes the PCs have easy victories, and sometimes they face what seem like impossible odds and the players
have to use their imaginations. And using your imagination is what rpgs are all about. If I want a challenge where I have to think inside the rules all the time, I'll play chess.
If D&D4e is unbalanced, I consider that a point in its favour.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;382391If D&D4e is unbalanced, I consider that a point in its favour.
Sure. The point is that 4e itself pretends to be "the most balanced game evar".
I totally agree with you that it shouldn't be a point for a role playing game, but 4e pretends it is.
Addressing the point of 4e's "rules balance" is valid as it pertains to this particular game which advertises itself on this basis, IMO.
Like you, I personally oppose the principle itself rather than its supposed accuracy, however.
Quote from: Benoist;382393Sure. The point is that 4e itself pretends to be "the most balanced game evar".
4E is an inanimate object. Actually, it's more like an idea. It can't pretend to be anything.
Certain people associated with the game might pretend that, but that's irrelevant to playing the game itself.
Quote from: Benoist;382393Sure. The point is that 4e itself pretends to be "the most balanced game evar".
I totally agree with you that it shouldn't be a point for a role playing game, but 4e pretends it is.
Again, so what? Should I be angry at TSR 1985 because despite her name Bond-esque name and the tantalising pictures on the front cover, inside there were no pictures of Goldmoon's bare arse?
Next I'll have to be angry that the Ab Torsionator Pro 6000 didn't really give me a fitness model's buff physique in just ten minutes a day for six weeks.
"Popular product not
quite as advertised. News at 11."
Quote from: BenoistLike you, I personally oppose the principle itself rather than its supposed accuracy, however.
"They claimed to have this thing I hate in their game, and it turns out they don't. So I'm really upset. I'd be much happier if they included more things I disliked, after all they PROMISED."
Alright, shake your fist in righteous nerdfury. Then shut the fuck up and roll the dice.
Oddly enough I see the inability of first level characters to kill epic foes in the first round of combat as poor game design.
Must be all those years of Rolemaster.
Somebody launching a class action lawsuit against WotC for false advertising. :rolleyes:
Quote from: David Johansen;382413Oddly enough I see the inability of first level characters to kill epic foes in the first round of combat as poor game design.
1st level character killing Orcus, by throwing rocks at him.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;382410Again, so what?
Well again, it's the 800 pound gorilla in the room. The problem is that legions of gamers believe this bullshit, and it ends up influencing other games, like for instance Warhammer FRP.
It's all nice and dandy to just shut the fuck up and roll the dice, but then again, if you do, you can hardly bitch if suddenly all the games shelved at the FLGS become irredeemable crap in your eyes.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;382410"They claimed to have this thing I hate in their game, and it turns out they don't. So I'm really upset. I'd be much happier if they included more things I disliked, after all they PROMISED."
Alright, shake your fist in righteous nerdfury. Then shut the fuck up and roll the dice.
The problem with this sort of argument is that you end up talking in platitudes all the time, because no specific opinion will matter. Agreeing with anything is pointless, disagreeing with anything is pointless. I'll just assume the position of the lotus and look at the world spin around me. Sure you can do that. Doesn't mean everyone has to.
Besides, it's a bit like Mark's post earlier that called a three-line post of mine an "overreaction". It's not because you're debating some idea or another on a message boards that suddenly you're all wrapped into "nerdfury" and stop living. You know there's a huge discrepency between what we perceive of people through their posts on the internet and what they actually do in their lives, right?
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;382410Alright, shake your fist in righteous nerdfury. Then shut the fuck up and roll the dice.
My next character's name will be Rod Nerdfury. :D
Quote from: Benoist;382416The problem with this sort of argument is that you end up talking in platitudes all the time, because no specific opinion will matter. Agreeing with anything is pointless, disagreeing with anything is pointless. I'll just assume the position of the lotus and look at the world spin around me.
Heh. Sounds like existential nihilism.
A world which resembles the equivalent of the "strong efficient market hypothesis".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efficient_market_hypothesis
Quote from: Benoist;382416Well again, it's the 800 pound gorilla in the room. The problem is that legions of gamers believe this bullshit, and it ends up influencing other games, like for instance Warhammer FRP.
WHFRP is balanced? News to anyone who's ever played it. WHFRP's even worse than Cthulhu for basically dooming everyone to miserable failure. Balance? Pffft.
Quote from: BenoistThe problem with this sort of argument is that you end up talking in platitudes all the time, because no specific opinion will matter.
Nonsense. What you end up doing is playing, and the talk is about how to make your play more fun. A rejection of navel-gazing isn't a rejection of all rational thought, it's just a rejection of
unproductive rational thought.
Saying, "This game was advertised as having quality X, which is a quality I hate, and I'm upset" is not productive. Like if
Twilight 2013 had advertised itself as having mutants with k3w1 pw0rz in it, which I hate, and then it turned out not to - and I was complaining about false advertising. I'd be complaining that it's more like what I enjoy. Same way, you don't want game balance, and are complaining that D&D4e is unbalanced.
Fuck's sakes, Benoist, what are you smoking?
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;382423WHFRP is balanced? News to anyone who's ever played it. WHFRP's even worse than Cthulhu for basically dooming everyone to miserable failure. Balance? Pffft.
Nah, I wasn't talking of balance in particular. I was talking about the notion that the game matters because its design inspires others to copy, like in the case of Warhammer FRP 3 which shares for instance the board gamey feel of 4e.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;382423Nonsense. What you end up doing is playing
Wait. You can do both. You can post on forums and discuss any sort of shit on the internet and play games at home, too. One somehow doesn't stop people from doing the other.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;382423and the talk is about how to make your play more fun. A rejection of navel-gazing isn't a rejection of all rational thought, it's just a rejection of unproductive rational thought.
It's productive in the sense that it helps appreciate different games in different ways, why you like this game as opposed to that game, and why.
It also helps forming opinions and statements on the game and therefore, serves in influencing the word-of-mouth and beyond how games evolve, and so on, so forth. I'm not claiming like we're particularly relevant individually, but these details here, on ENWorld, on TBP, in conventions, whatever, do add up over time to form a consensus as to how the 800 pound gorilla delivers... or failed to, and where to take the game from there.
You can talk about how to make the play more fun AND talk about shit like whether or not 4e is "balanced". One doesn't preclude the other, does it?
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;382423Saying, "This game was advertised as having quality X, which is a quality I hate, and I'm upset" is not productive. Like if Twilight 2013 had advertised itself as having mutants with k3w1 pw0rz in it, which I hate, and then it turned out not to - and I was complaining about false advertising. I'd be complaining that it's more like what I enjoy. Same way, you don't want game balance, and are complaining that D&D4e is unbalanced.
Fuck's sakes, Benoist, what are you smoking?
It's just that discussing topics like this isn't automatically unproductive or useless, I think. Note that I'm not the one going into the depth of the game system to determine whether the system's balanced or not. I personally wouldn't have the patience because I can't help but get distracted by some other piece of bullshit or the other when I try reading a 4e book at length.
Let's take another example. The Skill Challenges (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=17278). Do I personally care whether Skill Challenges work or not? Nope. I don't give a shit. It's like the idea of rules balance to me: it's just bullshit I don't want in my game. Does the discussion of whether Skill Challenges deliver interest me? Sure. When you've got like ten or twenty versions of Skill Challenges out there, and that no particular version fixes issues people perceive about them, it just confirms to me that Skill Challenges are just shit. I hope the 5e designers pay attention, and come to the same conclusions.
It's not automatically a waste of time to talk about such things. It's like me looking at the way this or that magical item works in OD&D vs. AD&D. I mean. It's a topic of conversation.
I'm not smoking anything! It's just that I don't understand why the subject seems so useless and outrageous to you.
Quote from: Benoist;382416It's all nice and dandy to just shut the fuck up and roll the dice, but then again, if you do, you can hardly bitch if suddenly all the games shelved at the FLGS become irredeemable crap in your eyes.
So your saying that because people didn't lodge compliant before they had a problem, they are somehow barred from speaking out.
Or that people should just be vocal , to be vocal.
The opinions expressed about D&D 4E by a bunch of OOP edition grognards on an internet forum have zero impact on the design of the game. Zero. Grognards are not the audience for the game. They are irrelevent.
Deep down, I think that's why some grognards just can't let it go. They deeply resent that a game that meant so much to them has moved on commercially and found a new audience.
Quote from: Haffrung;382450Deep down, I think that's why some grognards just can't let it go. They deeply resent that a game that meant so much to them has moved on commercially and found a new audience.
Deep down they are really resentful of Lorraine Williams and later WotC, giving them all the middle finger. (ie. Fuck you, we don't want your money).
Quote from: Haffrung;382450The opinions expressed about D&D 4E by a bunch of OOP edition grognards on an internet forum have zero impact on the design of the game. Zero. Grognards are not the audience for the game. They are irrelevent.
Deep down, I think that's why some grognards just can't let it go. They deeply resent that a game that meant so much to them has moved on commercially and found a new audience.
You get the same batch of Kool-Aid Abyssal Maw has been drinking?
I think the chunk of players is far more significant than you guys make it seem, and there aren't really all that many real grognards among them.
Remember. "Industry" with quotes. Teeny tiny living space. Not much profit. Borderline irrelevant.
When those things apply to your..."industry"...you listen when a chunk of potential consumers bitches.
Quote from: Peregrin;382456I think the chunk of players is far more significant than you guys make it seem, and there aren't really all that many real grognards among them.
Remember. "Industry" with quotes. Teeny tiny living space. Not much profit. Borderline irrelevant.
When those things apply to your..."industry"...you listen when a chunk of potential consumers bitches.
Yeah. Remember that between June of 2008 and April of 2009, WotC told a
court of law that they had sold "hundreds of thousands" of "core books." At the time, their definition of "core books" was quite expansive, and included all of the following (many of which have subsequently been reclassified as "accessories"):
- Arcane Power
- Player's Handbook 2
- Dungeondelve
- Open Grave
- Manual of the Planes
- Draconomicon I: Chromatic Dragons
- Martial Power
- D&D Roleplaying Game Starter Set
- Deluxe Monster Manual
- Deluxe Dungeon Master's Guide
- Deluxe Player's Handbook
- Adventurer's Vault
- Player's Handbook
- Monster Manual
- Dungeon Master's Guide
- 4th Edition Gift Set
I genuinely have no idea whether the Dungeon Tiles Sets were considered part of the "core book" lineup or not. Since while they were at the time labeled "Core 4th Edition D&D" they aren't
exactly "books." The point of course is that all 16 of those products
together did not sell a million copies in 11 months. And they are the big fish in this industry. By quite a margin. If WotC's numbers are to be believed (and I have little reason to doubt them), they currently claim about 1.5 million players of whom about 1 in 5 buy books - putting their high end circulation goals at about 300,000. Note that even
that is fairly generous, since they plainly were not selling to that many people in their first year of sales - indicating to me that that 300,000 is the total number of PHBs they have moved as of March of this year.
Compare and contrast: a small fish like the people making the new Dresden Files game have sold more than three
thousand copies of both of their big books. Not three
hundred thousand, just three thousand. And yeah, that's enough to recoup their investment and let them eat food and be happy, but the point is, it's a small number. When a hundred people deliver them a petition ultimatum that they will buy or not buy based on some criteria or another, that's a big deal to them. You could probably get rules for robots into Dresden Files with a campaign organized from a minor message board with some proper rabble rousing and some actual money being offered.
So anyone who says that you can't stop the juggernaut of human progress and nothing you say or do will influence D&D's path: that's
bullshit. The fact is that WotC said
in court that they had sold 120 digital copies of the PHB2 (which makes their decision to stop offering digital copies of the damn thing pretty sensible). We really are talking about sales figures small enough that an impassioned plea by 60 people really fucking matters.
Yes. You can't please everyone all the time. There are lots of different ways to game, and lots of different games to cater to those ideas. People who want a rules-light system are not
wrong, but they probably are not the target audience for a game that wants to sell a rulebook every month. But you know what? I'm not Benoist, I
am a gearhead and I
do want to play out battles as tactical exercises. I'm the target demographic for this fucking edition and when they announced their design goals in 2007
I was excited.
I do not believe they were barking up the wrong tree, I believe that the current crop of designers are incompetent hacks. It isn't that Mike Mearls is wrong to say that the goal should be a universal power framework and a codified skill challenge system - it's that he is fraudulent when he claims to actually have the ability to design something like that. He wrote
ten Skill Challenge overhauls, each one keeping the same core problems and adding more spaghetti code to try to obfuscate the optimal tactics. When all he really had to do was simplify it down a bit and invert the incentives so that the optimal tactics were fun.
And yes, saying that shit out loud has a real and demonstrable impact. The DMG 3 and Arcane Power 2 are
off the schedule. The Rules Compendium is now labeled as a D&D Essentials product. And so on. WotC is offering up massive paradigm shifts in how they are handling things in order to placate an angry fanbase. An angry fanbase made of people just like me.
-Frank
Quote from: FrankTrollman;382459The DMG 3 and Arcane Power 2 are off the schedule.
Was Arcane Power 2 ever officially on the schedule? (ie. On an official WotC web page).
Or was it mentioned unofficially? (ie. Such as in a WotC message board post, or in a 4E designer/developer's blog post, conference, etc ...)
They even removed the "Player's Handbook Races: Humans" title, from the official WotC D&D catalog listings and amazon.
A book on humans seems to be superfluous.
Quote from: ggroy;382467Was Arcane Power 2 ever officially on the schedule? (ie. On an official WotC web page).
Or was it mentioned unofficially? (ie. Such as in a WotC message board post, or in a 4E designer/developer's blog post, conference, etc ...)
I don't understand the distinction. Th Developer Blogs are
on the WotC web page.
That being said, I don't know that it was. They released their end of the year schedule rewrite in what, March? That's when they took The DMG 3 (http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/drfe/20090814) off the table for a September release. Or
any release as far as I can tell. Arcane Power 2 would have been go for October, but the schedule didn't go that far before 4.0 got canned.
-Frank
Quote from: FrankTrollman;382471I don't understand the distinction. Th Developer Blogs are on the WotC web page.
That wasn't worded very well. What I had in mind was whether Arcane Power 2 was ever mentioned in the quarterly WotC print catalogs, which game stores receive. Official in that sense.
Quote from: FrankTrollman;382471That being said, I don't know that it was. They released their end of the year schedule rewrite in what, March? That's when they took The DMG 3 (http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/drfe/20090814) off the table for a September release. Or any release as far as I can tell. Arcane Power 2 would have been go for October, but the schedule didn't go that far before 4.0 got canned.
So far the official 2011 D&D releases don't look particularly impressive. A tiles set for Jan 2011, and a Nentir Vale gazetteer and deluxe DM screen for Feb 2011.
For the 4E DMG3, several possible reasons one can see them dropping it from the official release schedule.
- Not enough content to fill up a minimum of 160 pages (hardcover book).
- Saleswise they think it will be a stinker.
- DDI is eating too much into 4E book sales.
They should just stop focusing on crunch and rules as main product. I wish they can just stop and focus on adventures and settings. This crunchfest treadmill will just result in more errata. Furthermore, with Masterplan being C&D, many are turned off, showing how dependent this game is on software aids to run. There is simply too much to keep track off by just using pen and paper.
Quote from: FrankTrollman;382459So anyone who says that you can't stop the juggernaut of human progress and nothing you say or do will influence D&D's path: that's bullshit. The fact is that WotC said in court that they had sold 120 digital copies of the PHB2 (which makes their decision to stop offering digital copies of the damn thing pretty sensible).
I've pointed this out before, but no, they didn't say that. Feel free to cite your sources, though!
Quote from: Benoist;382426Nah, I wasn't talking of balance in particular. I was talking about the notion that the game matters because its design inspires others to copy, like in the case of Warhammer FRP 3 which shares for instance the board gamey feel of 4e.
Shot!
Quote from: Benoist;382416The problem with this sort of argument is that you end up talking in platitudes all the time
Like "board gamey?"
Quote from: Thanlis;382492I've pointed this out before, but no, they didn't say that. Feel free to cite your sources, though!
Their court documents stated that they had proof that there were at least 1211 illegal downloads of the PHB2. They said they had proof that there were more than 10 illegal downloads for every legal purchase.
Now, for both statements to be true (and they were drafted for a fucking
judge, so I'm guessing they were), the PHB2 had to have sold 121 or less legal copies in the 30 days it was online before the statement was drafted.
You are correct that they never said that it sold 120 copies exactly. The statement would remain just as true if it sold only five or ten copies - although I rather imagine that had it been that low they would have used more exciting terminology like "More than 100 illegal downloads per legal electronic purchase!" Furthermore, it was actually available for purchase for several
days after they drafted that notice before they ordered all the pdf shops to take it down. At that rate of sales it easily could have picked up another couple dozen sales before being shut down.
But the real take home is that your complaint is an
irrelevant nitpick. 120 sales is a perfectly acceptable ballpark figure, and if the true total value was 94 or 132 it doesn't change the core assessment in the slightest.
-Frank
Quote from: ggroy;382452Deep down they are really resentful of Lorraine Williams and later WotC, giving them all the middle finger. (ie. Fuck you, we don't want your money).
You see, how many healthy people care about what some executive at a book company did 25 years ago? And care enough to still be angry. Honestly. Get a life.
Quote from: Haffrung;382507You see, how many healthy people care about what some executive at a book company did 25 years ago? And care enough to still be angry. Honestly. Get a life.
Well, she does deserve a great deal of scorn for what she did. But yeah, it's probably time to let go.
Quote from: FrankTrollman;382501Their court documents stated that they had proof that there were at least 1211 illegal downloads of the PHB2. They said they had proof that there were more than 10 illegal downloads for every legal purchase.
Now, for both statements to be true (and they were drafted for a fucking judge, so I'm guessing they were), the PHB2 had to have sold 121 or less legal copies in the 30 days it was online before the statement was drafted.
You are correct that they never said that it sold 120 copies exactly. The statement would remain just as true if it sold only five or ten copies - although I rather imagine that had it been that low they would have used more exciting terminology like "More than 100 illegal downloads per legal electronic purchase!" Furthermore, it was actually available for purchase for several days after they drafted that notice before they ordered all the pdf shops to take it down. At that rate of sales it easily could have picked up another couple dozen sales before being shut down.
But the real take home is that your complaint is an irrelevant nitpick. 120 sales is a perfectly acceptable ballpark figure, and if the true total value was 94 or 132 it doesn't change the core assessment in the slightest.
Well, no. You can get the court documents here (http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/254013-pdfs-wizards-coast-court-case.html), if anyone wants to follow along at home.
Case 1: WotC vs. Becker and Le. Paragraph 33: "However, by the time Scribd removed the unauthorized copy of Player's Handbook 2 from the 'Humble Apostle' Scribd page, approximately 1,607 copies had been downloaded and 2,654 copies had been viewed."
Case 2: WotC vs. Nolan and Osmena. Paragraph 33: "However, by the time Scribd removed the unauthorized copy of Player's Handbook 2 from defendant Nolan's Scribd page, approximately 1,010 copies had been downloaded and 1,604 copies had been viewed."
Case 3: WotC vs. Radzikowski, Doe 1, Doe 2, and Doe 3. Paragraph 40: "However, by the time Scribd removed the unauthorized copy of Player's Handbook 2 from Defendants' Doe 1, Doe 2, and Doe 3 Scribd webpage, approximately 376 copies had been downloaded and 665 copies had been viewed."
So what their court documents actually said is that 2,993 copies were downloaded from five specific Scribd pages. At no point in the complaints is there any discussion of electronic sales numbers.
I.e., you're wrong on three points, here. First, your numbers are completely screwed up. Second, WotC did not tell a judge there were more than 10 illegal downloads for every legal purchase. Third, they didn't give any numbers for illegal downloads via torrents, Rapidshare, Usenet, or anything else.
Quote from: Haffrung;382507You see, how many healthy people care about what some executive at a book company did 25 years ago? And care enough to still be angry. Honestly. Get a life.
I was never angry about Lorraine Williams. Heck I didn't even know she ran TSR, until just a few years ago.
I only started noticing this style of grognard anger, when I started playing tabletop rpg games again shortly after 3.5E D&D was released. (Before this time, I didn't even know TSR bit the dust and was bought up by WotC).
I asked some of my grognard friends why they were so angry about 2E AD&D and 3E/3.5E D&D, and never got a straight upfront answer. They went on long rants about 2E AD&D being completely "dumbed down", or how TSR was constantly suing people online during the 1990's. Not a single one of these grognards ever mentioned it had to do with the actual game mechanics or books published for 2E AD&D. Whenever I asked about whether it had to do with the actual game mechanics, they either refused to answer the question and/or were evading the question and trying to change the subject. Most were completely dumbfounded that anybody would even ask such a question.
For just about every grognard friend I asked, their reasons for really hating 2E AD&D and 3E/3.5E D&D were almost always a knee jerk emotional type reflex. It was as if the mere existence of 2E AD&D and 3E/3.5E D&D completely set them off, if nothing else.
I only ever got one straight upfront answer about why a particular grognard friend really hated 2E and 3E/3.5E. This was from a grognard friend who doesn't acknowledge the existence of stuff like Dragonlance, Forgotten Realms, WG7 Castle Greyhawk module, etc ... To this guy, basically any D&D books written without Gary Gygax's direct oversight during his tenure at TSR, is not considered to be "legitimate D&D". Basically to him, anything published without any direct oversight of Gary Gygax, is considered to be substandard crap unworthy of any further consideration.
Quote from: FrankTrollman;382459So anyone who says that you can't stop the juggernaut of human progress and nothing you say or do will influence D&D's path: that's bullshit. The fact is that WotC said in court that they had sold 120 digital copies of the PHB2 (which makes their decision to stop offering digital copies of the damn thing pretty sensible). We really are talking about sales figures small enough that an impassioned plea by 60 people really fucking matters.
Yes. You can't please everyone all the time. There are lots of different ways to game, and lots of different games to cater to those ideas. People who want a rules-light system are not wrong, but they probably are not the target audience for a game that wants to sell a rulebook every month. But you know what? I'm not Benoist, I am a gearhead and I do want to play out battles as tactical exercises. I'm the target demographic for this fucking edition and when they announced their design goals in 2007 I was excited.
Damn straight. Frank wants to have competent people design stuff he likes, and I basically want something else. We're exchanging ideas and points of view, we don't want the same thing, but that's okay. Now multiply that by a few hundred people posting regularly on message boards and yes, it does matter in forming memes and consensus in the end. Anybody who doesn't realize that is fooling himself.
Quote from: ggroy;382517I was never angry about Lorraine Williams. Heck I didn't even know she ran TSR, until just a few years ago.
Ah, I misunderstood. Sorry about that.
So remember the lesson you dirty old fatbeards: if you don't like what's happening to the hobby LOL NERDRAGE.
Quote from: FrankTrollman;382501Their court documents stated that they had proof that there were at least 1211 illegal downloads of the PHB2. They said they had proof that there were more than 10 illegal downloads for every legal purchase.
Now, for both statements to be true (and they were drafted for a fucking judge, so I'm guessing they were), the PHB2 had to have sold 121 or less legal copies in the 30 days it was online before the statement was drafted.
Uh, no. The assumption that the proof they had of the 10 illegal downloads for every 1 legal purchase was related to the proof of 1211 illegal downloads is not well founded.
They had known proof of X illegal downloads FROM ONE SOURCE (and a very minor source at that, relative to other sources of illegal downloads like torrents). They would have extrapolated that to all other common sources of illegal downloads based on various other lawsuits and experts. It was likely 100 times that number or more.
The standard of proof is not "we know 100% certain". It was a civil matter, and they use experts to give educated estimates to try and prove they are 51% likely of being more correct than the other side. They start with the best, most solid proof they have, and then they use that number to provided an educated estimate from other similar sources, and so on.
Regardless, it was pretty obvious it was not 120 copies, and that was not even a ballpark number.
So let me do something similar. Frank, you fucked up that estimate bad. Now if we take that proof of you fucking up, and extrapolate it to all your "WOTC suxors" posts, we can see you post bullshit 10 times for every 1 time you post non-bullshit :)
He's got "Troll" right in his name. I take him at his word, assume he's trolling and ignore him.
Quote from: ggroyyou're wrong
Yes I am. I misremembered the numbers. The basic point however stands, which is that "small" groups walking out actually
does matter.
The 10:1 ratio is Scott Rouse
defending the lawsuit rather than the lawsuit itself, but while Scott Rouse was the propaganda minister for WotC, he rarely actually lied. Especially not with numbers involved.
Quote from: NarfHe's got "Troll" right in his name.
Dude... that's my
actual name. I'm
published under it. You are hiding behind a screen name based on a sound effect from Pinky And The Brain.
-Frank
Quote from: Mistwell;382365some other option I have not considered.
Too many cheetos and too much jolt cola. :pundit:
Quote from: FrankTrollman;382603Quote from: ggroyyou're wrong
Yes I am. I misremembered the numbers.
I think you're quoting the wrong person. ;)
EDIT: I think you're referring to this post http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=382509&postcount=304
Quote from: Narf the Mouse;382600He's got "Troll" right in his name. I take him at his word, assume he's trolling and ignore him.
"Trollmann" sounds like a German or Austrian surname.
Quote from: ggroy;382608Trollmann sounds like a German or Austrian surname.
It's Austrian (http://www.austro-hungarian-army.co.uk/biog/trollmann.htm). The German side of the family had no children (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Trollmann).
-Frank
Quote from: FrankTrollman;382603Yes I am. I misremembered the numbers. The basic point however stands, which is that "small" groups walking out actually does matter.
Yeah, I'm not sure what the basic point was. You said that 120 digital sales were unimportant enough so that it made sense to quit selling PDFs, but then you said 60 people were important enough to change WotC's decisions. So that's a bit perplexing.
Quote from: FrankTrollman;382603Yes I am. I misremembered the numbers. The basic point however stands, which is that "small" groups walking out actually does matter.
Yeah, I'm not sure what the basic point was. You said that 120 digital sales were unimportant enough so that it made sense to quit selling PDFs, but then you said 60 people were important enough to change WotC's decisions. So that's a bit perplexing.
Speaking of 4E releases, wonder whose brilliant idea it was for this Nentir Vale gazeteer book (scheduled for release in Feb 2011).
http://www.amazon.com/Gazeteer-Nentir-Vale-4th-Supplement/dp/0786957662/
A trade paperback book of 192 pages.
EDIT: On the surface, it appears superfluous. Perhaps a compilation of setting details from the 4E DMG1, various modules, Dragon/Dungeon magazine articles, etc ...
Quote from: ggroy;382623Speaking of 4E releases, wonder whose brilliant idea it was for this Nentir Vale gazeteer book (scheduled for release in Feb 2011).
http://www.amazon.com/Gazeteer-Nentir-Vale-4th-Supplement/dp/0786957662/
A trade paperback book of 192 pages.
EDIT: On the surface, it appears superfluous. Perhaps a compilation of setting details from the 4E DMG1, various modules, Dragon/Dungeon magazine articles, etc ...
For reasons that defy ready analysis, 4e D&D has made as its default setting the Nentir Vale (http://tonytoon.home.insightbb.com/KOTS_PMAP.jpg). It's the area on the road and off it between Winterhaven and Hammerfast. Most of their adventures, most of their flavor text, most of their art, and so on... is all set in that basin. Which in turn appears to be essentially South Western Washington State.
It's kind of... limited... for a game. More so than using Seattle as the default for Shadowrun. But be that as it may, having a setting book for the core setting seems like a no brainer. I'm surprised that they are waiting until the tail end of year 3 for the thing. If you're going to set all your adventures in the Nentir Vale, it seems to me that you would want to make a setting book for that area right away.
-Frank
Another too little too late.
Quote from: FrankTrollman;382631For reasons that defy ready analysis, 4e D&D has made as its default setting the Nentir Vale (http://tonytoon.home.insightbb.com/KOTS_PMAP.jpg). It's the area on the road and off it between Winterhaven and Hammerfast. Most of their adventures, most of their flavor text, most of their art, and so on... is all set in that basin. Which in turn appears to be essentially South Western Washington State.
It's kind of... limited... for a game. More so than using Seattle as the default for Shadowrun. But be that as it may, having a setting book for the core setting seems like a no brainer. I'm surprised that they are waiting until the tail end of year 3 for the thing. If you're going to set all your adventures in the Nentir Vale, it seems to me that you would want to make a setting book for that area right away.
-Frank
Errr. No. It's not especially limited, considering the scale on the map you linked. It's actually quite standard for an adventuring area (see map of Nyr Dyv and area surrounding the Free City of Greyhawk, up to Maure Castle). Maybe a tiny bit smaller, but not that much.
Now, if you consider a medieval setting, it's an actually vast area to cover. If you consider a High Magic feel for the setting, especially if teleportations, winged mounts etc are considered, it'll reduce the area's relative scale greatly. But in First Ed AD&D, that would be largely enough to cover a Campaign.
Consider this campaign map of my Franc Barrois (http://enrill.net/images/maps/Meuse-area5.jpg), with a scale of approximately one hex per mile, and one large numbered hex for a league, i.e. three miles. I know this area for growing up there. It's actually, for a medieval mindset, a region onto itself, and you can get a LOT of adventuring done in such a sandbox (bear in mind it's for OD&D/AD&D vintage gaming, so 4e's assumptions, again, might blow a hole in my thinking, here).
So... what makes you say it's rather small?
Quote from: Benoist;382635Consider this campaign map of my Franc Barrois (http://enrill.net/images/maps/Meuse-area5.jpg), with a scale of approximately one hex per mile, and one large numbered hex for a league, i.e. three miles. I know this area for growing up there. It's actually, for a medieval mindset, a region onto itself, and you can get a LOT of adventuring done in such a sandbox (bear in mind it's for OD&D/AD&D vintage gaming, so 4e's assumptions, again, might blow a hole in my thinking, here).
You could easily fit 4e's heroic tier into the Vale. Since in theory, paragon tier and epic tier get all planar, I think you'd want more scope in the long term. You could argue that these have been covered, though -- Underdark, Manual of the Planes, Astral Sea, and Plane Below all provide paragon/epic tier setting material. In fact, if you look at it that way, heroic tier has been somewhat underrepresented.
Also, all four of those books are pretty tied to the default setting. Could have been written generically, but I'm not sure they'd have been any good. (Cue snarky comments about whether or not they're any good already, sure sure.)
Sooo a Nentir Vale book completes what's already been started, although if this is an accurate guess on my part, WotC's really backing into it. I would also assume that the "generic plus yearly setting books" idea didn't work out as hoped. But that's the usual outsider guess, and I wouldn't bet a ton of money on it.
Quote from: FrankTrollman;382603Dude... that's my actual name. I'm published under it. You are hiding behind a screen name based on a sound effect from Pinky And The Brain.
-Frank
I sincerely apologize; I thought it was descriptive and self-chosen.
Quote from: Thanlis;382639You could easily fit 4e's heroic tier into the Vale. Since in theory, paragon tier and epic tier get all planar, I think you'd want more scope in the long term.
Oh, sure. Yes. In the case of Greyhawk or my Barrois map there, that remark would work as well. I guess the Heroic Tier in 4e would cover lower levels in AD&D. Once you get access to spells (or rituals or w/e) which allow you to quickly move around the world and the planes, the scale of the campaign setting changes naturally, I see what you mean.
Quote from: Thanlis;382639Sooo a Nentir Vale book completes what's already been started, although if this is an accurate guess on my part, WotC's really backing into it. I would also assume that the "generic plus yearly setting books" idea didn't work out as hoped. But that's the usual outsider guess, and I wouldn't bet a ton of money on it.
Nod. I see what you mean.
Why is it that the yearly setting books idea isn't popular? How are you coming to that conclusion?
Quote from: Benoist;382635So... what makes you say it's rather small?
Well, it's about a hundred miles across. Which is actually enough to do a campaign if you stay in the "Heroic Tier" (at higher tiers you ride around on griffons and stuff, so your hundred mile spread is a 2 hour trip or eve less).
But I don't even mean that it's small for
a game so much as it being small for
the game. There's no stormy seas, no mighty glaciers, no vast deserts. It's two sets of mountains and the nearly hundred miles of lowlands with accompanying woods, wetlands, and villages in between. There's nothing
wrong with setting your D&D game in South Western Washington State. That's fine. But it's pretty limited to try to cram
all of D&D into that.
Where do we fight pirates or yetis or firenewt slavers? This is Dungeons & Dragons. There's more to life than hills, swamps, forests, lakes, and plains. Things that are in bigger worlds like
The Forgotten Realms but not in any particular 100 mile vista you care to name.
I actually think the Nentir Vale is a fine idea. I just think that they should have put it next to a chapter on fleshing out the bigger world and gave a sample map with the more outre land formations on it.
-Frank
Quote from: FrankTrollman;382645Well, it's about a hundred miles across. Which is actually enough to do a campaign if you stay in the "Heroic Tier" (at higher tiers you ride around on griffons and stuff, so your hundred mile spread is a 2 hour trip or eve less).
*nod* We all agree on this.
Quote from: FrankTrollman;382645But I don't even mean that it's small for a game so much as it being small for the game. There's no stormy seas, no mighty glaciers, no vast deserts. It's two sets of mountains and the nearly hundred miles of lowlands with accompanying woods, wetlands, and villages in between. There's nothing wrong with setting your D&D game in South Western Washington State. That's fine. But it's pretty limited to try to cram all of D&D into that.
Where do we fight pirates or yetis or firenewt slavers? This is Dungeons & Dragons. There's more to life than hills, swamps, forests, lakes, and plains. Things that are in bigger worlds like The Forgotten Realms but not in any particular 100 mile vista you care to name.
I actually think the Nentir Vale is a fine idea. I just think that they should have put it next to a chapter on fleshing out the bigger world and gave a sample map with the more outre land formations on it.
-Frank
I see what you mean now, in terms of having a large variety of milieux, for vastly different types of wilderness adventures and the like. That's a good point. A setting for "the" game instead of "a" game.
Maybe it's not the destination of the Nentir Vale to really detail the wider world, though? Is the Nentir Vale just a stand alone area or some such? I don't remember off hand, and I don't particularly care to go dig in the 4e DMG right now.
Quote from: Benoist;382644Nod. I see what you mean.
Why is it that the yearly setting books idea isn't popular? How are you coming to that conclusion?
I'm guessing. I'm not super-confident in my guess and I'm probably allowing my own biases to affect me; however, they did tweak the format for Dark Sun and producing a Nentir Vale book is a divergence from the old pattern. Also, while I aggressively disagree that the Essentials line is 4.5, I think it does represent a shift in publishing strategy.
Oh, re: terminology -- Nentir Vale is a specific location. It hosts the first two heroic tier adventures. The third heroic tier adventure is sort of located in the Vale, but all the action takes place in an extra-dimensional space, which I think was a misstep for various thematic reasons.
The first paragon adventure takes place north of the Vale; the second one goes into the Underdark (and could be dropped into Greyhawk or the Forgotten Realms with some tweaking); and the third one is planar. The epics, likewise, have very little to do with the Vale proper.
I am reluctant to read too much into a leaked Amazon listing. Could be that it's just the Vale, which would be a lot of detail for the space. Could be something bigger. Table of contents wanted.
Quote from: Benoist;382644Why is it that the yearly setting books idea isn't popular? How are you coming to that conclusion?
Anecdotally, I've noticed that some nearby gaming stores and big box bookstores don't even bother restocking their shelves anymore for certain 4E titles.
I remember some local gaming store owners mentioning that the 4E Forgotten Realms books were a complete stinker in terms of sales. A few places got totally "burned" from ordering too many copies of the 4E FR campaign guide in anticipation of it being a hot seller during the summer of 2008, but to no avail. (They were completely wrong in their anticipation). It essentially died with a whimper.
By the time the 4E Eberron titles were released, they were already "once burned twice shy" about stocking it. It turns out they were right this time around, in the summer of 2009. They mentioned the sales of the 4E Eberron titles have fallen into the crapper too, over the last year. Though they were not stuck with tons of useless inventory collecting dust, this time around.
At this point the store owners don't even bother backordering the 4E Forgotten Realms and Eberron books anymore, unless somebody makes a special order for any of them. The last thing they need is older 4E books sitting on the shelves collecting dust for long periods of time.
Also on their "do not backorder" list are older 4E titles such as:
- Adventurer's Vault 1
- Manual of the Planes
- Draconomicon 1
- Dungeon Delve
- any non-current WotC 4E modules older than one year old (ie. H1->H3, P1->P3, etc ...)
- Dragon Magazine Annual 2009
Quote from: Thanlis;382650I'm guessing. I'm not super-confident in my guess and I'm probably allowing my own biases to affect me; however, they did tweak the format for Dark Sun and producing a Nentir Vale book is a divergence from the old pattern.
No idea what they will be announcing at Gencon 2010 in two months.
There doesn't appear to be a lot of rampant online speculation on what D&D setting they will do for 2011. It seems somewhat subdued this year, compared to this time last year.
With that being said, I doubt they will do something like Greyhawk, Mystara, or Dragonlance. They seem too generic, and probably not a huge audience left anymore. The remaining grognard audience may also really hate 4E, which makes these settings even less likely to be considered for a 4E revamp.
Also iffy would be older settings like Ravenloft, Spelljammer, Planescape, Birthright, Kara-Tur, Maztica, Al-Qadim, etc ...
- Useful stuff from Spelljammer and Planescape could be covered in the planar books.
- There's already a Ravenloft board game on the release schedule. Stuff from the setting itself could be covered a Shadowfell splatbook.
- Birthright would seem pointless to do, other than maybe as a set of supplement rules in some Dragon Magazine articles.
- Probably not a huge audience left for Maztica and Al-Qadim outside of Forgotten Realms. It would probably be easier to write up a series of Dragon and Dungeon Magazine articles, covering the relevant parts of these settings.
- Kara-Tur or Mahasarpa could be used for an oriental adventures type setting. (WotC doesn't have the rights anymore for Rokugan). Though the question at this point is whether there's still a large enough 4E audience, who would want to buy an oriental setting for 4E.
One possibility for a 2011 setting is Urban Arcana incorporated into the 4E "points of light" setting. Though for something like this, they would need a book with all the crunch for modern stuff like firearms, vehicles, etc ...
For that matter in 2011, in principle they could place 4E D&D on the backburner and work on releasing a new version of d20 Modern using the Star Wars SAGA ruleset or the 4E D&D rulset.
Quote from: Thanlis;382650Also, while I aggressively disagree that the Essentials line is 4.5, I think it does represent a shift in publishing strategy.
Definitely.
The thing that gets me about the "Is Essentials 4.5" question is the Rules Compendium. It was originally slated as a 4e D&D book. Then it was later turned into an Essentials D&D product (the current cover uses the D&D Essentials logo).
Further, Greg Bilsland said this about it:
Quote from: Greg Bilsland, on the May ErrataAll the updates you see next week will be included in RC. The July updates won't affect Rules Compendium, b/c it will focus on powers/feats.
But he
also said in the same week that he was going to be making the rules "for Essentials" in the coming months (in reference to why he wouldn't be able to work on a different project). Heavily implying that what was "in the RC" and what was "in D&D Essentials" were
different, in that one had been decided and the other had not. However, less than two weeks later, the Rules Compendium had its Catalog entry changed and its cover modified so that it was
itself part of the Essentials line.
Sounds to me like prognostication on what they think they are doing is a little weak, because they don't
know what they are doing. There seem to be substantial shakeups and the direction the company is going is taking some sharp turns, but there are people fighting over the steering wheel.
-Frank
Quote from: ggroy;3824151st level character killing Orcus, by throwing rocks at him.
No, the first level character throws a rock at Orcus which strikes him in the side of his temple causing his brain to spray out his nose, thus killing him instantly +10 to all activity next round!
Quote from: FrankTrollman;382786Sounds to me like prognostication on what they think they are doing is a little weak, because they don't know what they are doing. There seem to be substantial shakeups and the direction the company is going is taking some sharp turns, but there are people fighting over the steering wheel.
Dilbert style design by committee. :banghead:
EDIT: Compounded with a constantly revolving door of characters. :banghead:
It would be pretty sad if Nentir Vale is their big 2011 setting.
** The sound of a balloon deflating. **
Quote from: FrankTrollman;382786The thing that gets me about the "Is Essentials 4.5" question is the Rules Compendium. It was originally slated as a 4e D&D book. Then it was later turned into an Essentials D&D product (the current cover uses the D&D Essentials logo).
Nope. It was never ever slated as anything other than an Essentials book. The Essentials line was announced at DDXP this January. Here's a writeup. (http://critical-hits.com/2010/01/29/dd-xp-2010-dungeons-dragons-essentials/) Notice that the Rules Compendium is mentioned as part of the D&D Essentials line. That's the first time anyone outside WotC had heard of Essentials, and the Rules Compendium is right there.
On 2/3/10, Bill Slavicsek posted an article about Essentials. Unfortunately, it's behind a pay wall, but here's what he said. Long quote, but you probably want the context.
QuoteThe Essentials line consists of 10 key products that will always be in stock and will form the core of the Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game experience moving forward. Each product is designed to provide a more streamlined, more directed, and less expensive experience for the user. These products don't replace the existing Player's Handbook, Dungeon Master's Guide, or Monster Manual. They represent a separate pathway into the game.
It all starts with the Dungeons & Dragons Fantasy Roleplaying Game, a new version of the original "Red Box" starter game. This is the Essential starting point for new players coming to the brand. It features a player's book that uses a solitaire pick-a-path process to create a character, a Dungeon Master's book with basic 4th Edition game rules and a group adventure, a set of dice, a poster map, cardstock tokens for characters and monsters, and power cards. The box takes players from 1st level through 2nd level with a limited selection of options and choices.
From there, the Dungeons & Dragons Rules Compendium puts all the core rules of the game into a single volume for the first time. The rules are presented in a logical order, organized for easy access during a game session. The 6" x 9" trade paperback is full color and costs $19.95, making it a must-have for players and Dungeon Masters who want to go beyond the basic rules presented in the "Red Box." Its size helps with portability, and it takes up less room on your game table.
So there you go -- in February, the Rules Compendium was being marketed as part of the Essentials line. It's never been marketed separately that I'm aware of. The Internet Archive isn't grabbing the WotC D&D page, so I can't be really comprehensive, but I don't even know of anyone else making this claim.
A few more bits of evidence:
- March 24th GTS seminar notes. (http://www.livingdice.com/3690/wizards-of-the-coast-gts-2010-seminar/) Scroll down to 5:28; see the slide with all the Essentials products on it? The one in the center below the Red Box is the Rules Compendium.
- The cover of the Rules Compendium. (http://www.amazon.com/Rules-Compendium-Essential-Dungeons-Dragons/dp/0786956216) Note the dragon's eyes, the bit of light behind the wing, the claws coming over the edge -- compare it to the previous picture. The cover has been the same at least since March 24th.
- Charles Ryan on 2/1, noting the Rules Compendium as part of the Essentials line. (http://community.wizards.com/dnduk/blog/2010/02/01/ddxp_roundup)
This is only confusing if you're obsessed with the idea that Essentials is D&D 4.5. If you accept that it's not going to be a new edition, it becomes pretty simple.
Quote from: FrankTrollman;382786But he also said in the same week that he was going to be making the rules "for Essentials" in the coming months (in reference to why he wouldn't be able to work on a different project). Heavily implying that what was "in the RC" and what was "in D&D Essentials" were different, in that one had been decided and the other had not. However, less than two weeks later, the Rules Compendium had its Catalog entry changed and its cover modified so that it was itself part of the Essentials line.
Maybe they're trying to use the 4E Rules Compendium book, as a "gateway drug" to move the compulsive 4E D&D book buyers into the 4E Essentials line.
At this point in time, WotC may very well be highly dependent on the compulsive rpg book collectors who buy every single new 4E splatbook released. (ie. People who would buy books like that cheesy 4E Player's Strategy Guide).
http://www.amazon.com/Dungeons-Dragons-Players-Strategy-Guide/dp/0786954884/
Quote from: ggroy;382790It would be pretty sad if Nentir Vale is their big 2011 setting.
I wouldn't mourn; I don't really need another setting. Whether or not I'll be impressed depends on how much new material there is. I rather liked Hammerfall. But yeah, that's part of what I meant about changes in strategy.
QuoteMaybe they're trying to use the 4E Rules Compendium book, as a "gateway drug" to move the compulsive 4E D&D book buyers into the 4E Essentials line.
It's useful both ways. Certainly as a serious 4e player, I want the rules in a compact format, so it's handy for me. Also it means that Essentials players don't have to go buy any of the old format core books.
The various player books (Heroes of This and That) will also contain new powers, feats, and so on. So those are going to be tempting as well. I have no doubt but that they want as much of the Essentials line as possible to serve existing players. I bet the monsters in the Monster Vault will be mostly new -- kobolds and goblins, sure, but different variants filling the same role niches.
Oh, here's the RPG.Net thread. (http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=496721) Dates to 1/30. Post #18 (http://forum.rpg.net/showpost.php?p=11613419&postcount=18) has a picture of the Rules Compendium, showing the D&D Essentials trade dress, with "Essentials" visible on the cover.
If this is the case that WotC will keep the ten 4E Essentials titles in print, one wonders whether WotC will just let all the older 4E D&D core books and splatbooks go out of print.
If they let 4E PHB1, PHB2, MM1, and DMG1 go out of print, they can just direct people to the 4E Essentials equivalent books instead.
For the 4E classes which are not covered in the first two 4E Essentials "Heroes of this and that" books, they can later write some new Heroes books which covers those classes (ie. invoker, warlord, warden, shaman, etc ...). If they don't bother writing new Heroes books, in principle they can make these less popular classes as DDI only.
Quote from: ggroy;382873If this is the case that WotC will keep the ten 4E Essentials titles in print, one wonders whether WotC will just let all the older 4E D&D core books and splatbooks go out of print. If they let PHB1, PHB2, MM1, and DMG1 go out of print, they can just direct people to the 4E Essentials equivalent books instead. For the 4E classes which are not covered in the first two 4E Essentials "Heroes of this and that" books, they can just write some new Heroes book which covers those classes (ie. invoker, warlord, warden, shaman, etc ...).
It's come to mind. I think that's something they could do. If I worked at WotC and I knew what the pre-order numbers were for Essentials vs. other books, I could make a far better guess, however. I note that the spring books so far are pretty generic and could easily fall into either D&D line, so I would guess that they were hedging their bets when they put that schedule together. But emphasis is on guess.
I suspect they will be watching very closely how well the first few 4E Essentials titles sell, such as the basic red box set and the first Heroes book. If sales turn out to be crap, I wouldn't be surprised if no further new 4E Essentials titles will be made (other than what has already been written months in advance).
For that matter in 2011, WotC may very well have a surprise announcement at Gencon 2010 in two months. Something which non-insiders have not anticipated at all.
Who knows? Maybe WotC will get the license to do a Marvel Super Heroes rpg. (Whether it will be FASERIP or another ruleset, is a different matter altogether).
I've been going by their Catalog and its product descriptions and the categories they assign things into there. So originally there was going to be a Rules Compendium that was in the Dungeon Master's Kit box and a Rules Compendium that was going to be sold on its own. And each was a different number of pages from the other. And the Rules Compendium was not listed as a D&D Essentials Product, it was listed as a "D&D Rules Supplement" - which is evidently different. And indeed, it didn't have the "Essential D&D" mark on its cover - you'll note that the Rules Compendium they show on that slide you just linked to does not have that mark either.
They changed things around, and now the Rules Compendium has the Essential D&D mark on its cover, but it's still not listed under the Essentials line product numbers, even though they have moved its release back to after the release of the Essentials Box.
It's all very confusing. It's like they have different people making marketing decisions who are either in favor or opposed to switching over to a new product designation.
But it is a new product designation. Once Essentials drops, dice boxes and dungeon tiles stop being sold as "D&D Accessory" and start being sold as "Essential D&D Game Accessory." Now, whether the rebranding of the product line is just a stunt to try to interest stores in restocking or represents an actual break in the game philosophy remains to be seen. Certainly they have fired an awful lot of people and they promised "significant changes" to the core rules.
Changes appear from the ground to be at least as extensive as those going from 3rd edition to 3.5. Hell, they are rewriting 8 classes and changing what the basic set of core classes even are (Warlord is out, Druid is in). That seems to be at least as big a deal as "we gave Rangers 6 skill points and nerfed Haste, Harm, and Heal." And they are changing their sales imprints.
So yeah, to me Essentials has already passed the bar of what it takes to be a new "quasi" edition like 3.5. Different Core classes in the basic book, different sales imprint, changes to a bunch of spells, and a bunch of fiddly errata inflicted on the combat mechanics. That's as much and more than 3.5 ever delivered. I do not think that they are planing on making changes extensive enough that I would call it version 5. They are still pushing the concept of Defender + Controller + Leader + 2 Strikers as the basis for a party. And I'm pretty sure that since Noonan is gone, that idea is going to be set on fire the first time someone gets the chance to make something that's really a "new edition."
-Frank
This confusion could also be due to WotC's webmasters being lazy about keeping accurate up to date information on the non-pay portion of the D&D web site.
Quote from: ggroy;382891This confusion could also be due to WotC's webmasters being lazy about keeping accurate up to date information on the non-pay portion of the D&D web site.
There is certainly that. But back in March, the Rules Compendium
was not an Essential D&D Product. We saw the cover mock-up and it did not have that logo on it. Now it does have that logo on its cover. That's a pretty big change, website accuracy or no.
-Frank
Quote from: FrankTrollman;382887But it is a new product designation. Once Essentials drops, dice boxes and dungeon tiles stop being sold as "D&D Accessory" and start being sold as "Essential D&D Game Accessory." Now, whether the rebranding of the product line is just a stunt to try to interest stores in restocking or represents an actual break in the game philosophy remains to be seen.
This rebranding may very well be just a stunt, to encourage people to buy other 4E Essentials titles.
In previous editions, they did this by changing the format of the front covers of hardcover books and modules for D&D/AD&D. It was largely window dressing, with almost no change to the content inside the books and modules. Titles with the older cover format may very well have been perceived to be "old junk", which may end up sitting on the shelves collecting dust longer than the ones with the newer window dressing.
As silly as this sounds, I've known many obsessive people over the years who will buy the same product twice (or more) whenever there's changes to the window dressing. This is so that their "collection" of items has a similar window dressing. This could be anything collectible like DVDs, music cds, books, toys, etc ...
EDIT: Some people are even obsessive about the packaging of the DVD, cd, book, toy, etc ... that it came in.
Quote from: FrankTrollman;382887I've been going by their Catalog and its product descriptions and the categories they assign things into there. So originally there was going to be a Rules Compendium that was in the Dungeon Master's Kit box and a Rules Compendium that was going to be sold on its own. And each was a different number of pages from the other. And the Rules Compendium was not listed as a D&D Essentials Product, it was listed as a "D&D Rules Supplement" - which is evidently different. And indeed, it didn't have the "Essential D&D" mark on its cover - you'll note that the Rules Compendium they show on that slide you just linked to does not have that mark either.
The exact form of the mark is the big D&D logo, with "Essentials" in fairly small type underneath it. You can't see "Essentials" on any of the covers on the slide from the GTS seminar, because it's too small. You can see it on the slide from the RPG.Net thread, though. Again: here. (http://forum.rpg.net/showpost.php?p=11613419&postcount=18) The Rules Compendium has always been part of the Essentials line.
There's also never been more than one version of the Rules Compendium. However, on 2/10, Trevor Kidd talks about this issues explicitly (http://community.wizards.com/dungeonsanddragons/blog/2010/02/10/dungeon_masters_kit):
QuoteAt one point, we thought we would be able to fit the entire Rules Compendium into this 256-page book. In the end we didn't feel we could do the Rules Compendium justice with such limited trappings, so we made the call to have the DM Kit only handle DM-related rules issues. We were still hammering out these details in the weeks leading up to D&D Experience, which led to some out-dated information being shared at the convention.
So that's the story. Originally the Rules Compendium was going to be in the DM Kit. Eventually they decided that it wouldn't fit. It was never, ever slated to be something outside the Essentials line; likewise, since the Essentials line is 4e, it has always been a 4e product.
Quote from: FrankTrollman;382892There is certainly that. But back in March, the Rules Compendium was not an Essential D&D Product. We saw the cover mock-up and it did not have that logo on it. Now it does have that logo on its cover. That's a pretty big change, website accuracy or no.
Dude!
(http://nimitz.cat.pdx.edu/09September1.jpg)
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51Fp1IDi%2BrL._SL500_AA300_.jpg)
It's the same trade dress. It has ten little smudgy letters right beneath the D&D logo. The first little smudge is right under the "R" in "Dragons". The last smudge is right under the "o". Open it up in Photoshop or Gimp and blow up the image if you want a clearer look at it, but you don't need one.
The first slide is from DDXP. 1/30/2010.
Just for good measure, here's the March slide:
(http://images.scribblelive.com/2010/3/24/99b5d7f3-0f46-4c42-996a-d8959490e94b_400.jpg)
You can't make out the word "Essentials" on any of those products, because it's very very small. Not because it's not there.
Yeah, but this one doesn't have that:
(http://images.scribblelive.com/2010/3/24/99b5d7f3-0f46-4c42-996a-d8959490e94b_400.jpg)
And the one on their website didn't have it either.
Now it does.
But it still does not have an Essentials D&D product designation in their ordering catalog or mention that it is an Essentials product on its flak page.
-Frank
Another point is how exactly are they counting the "ten" 4E Essentials titles.
Are the three 4E Essentials "branded" tile sets included in the count?
Is the 4E Rules Compendium counted?
Is the dragon dice with the 4E Essentials style packaging included in the count?
http://wizards.com/dnd/Product.aspx?x=dnd/products/dndacc/244690000
Quote from: FrankTrollman;382900Yeah, but this one doesn't have that:
(http://images.scribblelive.com/2010/3/24/99b5d7f3-0f46-4c42-996a-d8959490e94b_400.jpg)
... Frank? What's the big logo on the bottom of that slide? Squint a bit, check out the word directly underneath "Dungeons & Dragons."
Quote from: ggroy;382903Another point is how exactly are they counting the "ten" 4E Essentials titles.
Are the three 4E Essentials "branded" tile sets included in the count?
Is the 4E Rules Compendium counted?
Is the dragon dice with the 4E Essentials style packaging included in the count?
The product catalog lists: three tile sets, two Heroes books. That's five. Monster Vault, DM Kit, Rules Compendium. Eight. Red Box. Nine. Dice set, that's ten. If you think that the Series it's listed as means something, well, the dice set isn't listed as an Essentials series item either, but it has the logo on the cover and it uses the same trade dress.
The Ampersand column I've mentioned already also lists those same 10 items (and did so back on 2/3/2010).
Looks like WoTC's been thinking about this 'half new' edition for a while, but only recently specified a course of action.
Quote from: Doom;382908Looks like WoTC's been thinking about this 'half new' edition for a while, but only recently specified a course of action.
The earliest public indication of this was an amazon listing which started to show up sometime in late December 2009 or around New Years.
http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/22072457/new_4E_Damp;D_starter_set
(The date on that post is January 2, 2010).
The change in course to 4E Essentials, could have been fleshed out in detail sometime between Gencon 2009 and December 2009. With the semi-euphoria of Gencon 2009 in August and hardly any work getting done past early December, most likely the planning and general details of the 4E Essentials line, were fleshed out formally sometime in September, October and November 2009. (ie. In-house corporate presentations, reports, etc ... to get the green light).
If something like this actually happened, perhaps this may also be an indication of when WotC upper management started to notice 4E book sales sliding significantly. This could be the point where sliding book sales could no longer be ignored.
During this time period and slightly before, the following 4E books were released:
- Monster Manual 2 (May 2009)
- Eberron Player's Guide (June 2009)
- E2 Kingdom of the Ghouls (June 2009)
- Divine Power (July 2009)
- Eberron Campaign Guide (July 2009)
- Seekers of the Ashen Crown (July 2009)
- Adventurer's Vault 2 (August 2009)
- Dungeon Master's Guide 2 (September 2009)
- Dragon Magazine Annual 2009 (September 2009)
- Revenge of the Giants (September 2009)
- Primal Power (October 2009)
- E3 Prince of Undeath (October 2009)
- Draconomicon: Metallic Dragons (November 2009)
From what I recall of conversations with local gaming store owners/managers, they mentioned the only half-decent selling title in the above list was the DMG2. (Not spectacular, but not dreadful either). They mentioned the absolute stinkers in that above list were: the three Eberron titles, Adventurer's Vault 2, Dragon Magazine Annual 2009, E2 and E3 modules. For Divine Power and Primal Power, they thought sales could have been better.
The Plane Below and Dragon Annual are the worst sellers in my FLGS.
It does show that an edition hype only lasts for two years max. After that you need to come up with a revised, x.5 or an "essentials"..
Also, after browsing the WOTC forums about new classes and errata irritation, I am not sure if WOTC's current model works. They are primarily a crunch based producer and sooner or later there will be a limit to the new classes and races that they can produce. Anything more and books will be less bought. With the errata issue, less people will be buying books and just waiting for DDI updates, since the bulk of WOTC's D&D is all about crunch anyway.
I am wondering after PHB5 comes out, will Shadow and Elemental classes filled, what else can they produce? Bear in mind this is two years from now, unless they push back releases. I think Paizo's model of focusing on setting and adventures is a better model for rpgs.
Quote from: areola;383048It does show that an edition hype only lasts for two years max. After that you need to come up with a revised, x.5 or an "essentials"..
This seems to be the case.
IIRC, the earliest announcement for 3.5E D&D was in January 2003. (Don't have a link offhand).
Monte Cook mentions that 3.5E D&D was planned from the very beginning.
http://www.montecook.com/arch_review26.html
Quote from: areola;383048Also, after browsing the WOTC forums about new classes and errata irritation, I am not sure if WOTC's current model works. They are primarily a crunch based producer and sooner or later there will be a limit to the new classes and races that they can produce. Anything more and books will be less bought. With the errata issue, less people will be buying books and just waiting for DDI updates, since the bulk of WOTC's D&D is all about crunch anyway.
Perhaps the DDI character builder updates may possibly have contributed to the less than stellar sales of later 4E splatbooks like: Divine Power, Primal Power, and Adventurer's Vault 2.
The owners/managers of nearby gaming stores mentioned the sales of the first several crunch heavy 4E splatbooks were actually ok initially. (ie. Titles like Adventurer's Vault 1, Martial Power, and Arcane Power). But a few months after initial release, the sales of these splatbooks went down the toilet too. None of these splatbooks they would consider an "evergreen" title.
Quote from: areola;383048I think Paizo's model of focusing on setting and adventures is a better model for rpgs.
TSR tried this back in the 2E AD&D days during the 1990's. WotC is probably not likely to try it again anytime soon. (ie. Once burned, twice shy).
Most likely Paizo is doing something different which is keeping it afloat, which TSR wasn't doing back in the 1990's. I suspect it is the direct subscription sales of the Pathfinder APs and other supplement books. They get all the cash directly without a middleman distributor, from their direct subscription sales. They're also running their own online gaming store.
If I had the stroke needed, I'd start pushing for an entirely different model that uses DDI as its axis mundi. No more print books. All fluff content goes to a D&D Wiki (which would just be all of the existing ones bought out, unified and curated), all crunch goes to the Builders, and all that's sold in stores are minis and maps. Applications for iPad/iPhone/iPod, Android, etc. given away via the respective application stores (including, of course, die rollers) and adventures released as add-ons for the applications (which, through networking, means you can play/run D&D in any part of the civilized world). An entire section of the store would be user-created (and publisher-approved) adventures; these are micro-payment products (and would be Official Adventures). Shifting the default play model to the RPGA's Living Campaign would be complete, and the Campaign would have its own frequently-updated section in the D&D Wiki.
Earlier today I dropped by into a nearby gaming store and had a chat with the manager, asking about the recent 4E splatbooks. He mentioned that for the last several months or so, they now only bother to order only one copy of each of the newer "marginal" 4E titles. (The main business of this gaming store is not tabletop rpgs). The single copies of recent 4E titles like: Player's Strategy Guide, Dungeon Magazine Annual, Slaying Stone, Plane Above, etc ... have all been largely collecting dust without selling a single copy. The only 4E books he sold in recent months, was several copies of PHB3.
A week ago I went to a larger gaming store in town, and also had a chat with the owner. He too mentioned a similar story, about the dismal sales of recent 4E splatbooks.
Quote from: areolaI am wondering after PHB5 comes out, will Shadow and Elemental classes filled, what else can they produce?
I disagree strenuously. A 4e D&D class is very
small in terms of tactical variability and conceptual space. A Rogue is a Martial striker who is dex based and uses a dagger. An Assassin is a Shadow Striker who is dex based and uses a dagger. If you had someone who was like a rogue, but strangled people with a scarf like a Thugee killer, that would have to be its own class. If you wanted to make a tree sap based dagger wielding ninja like the Dryad from Kotetsu, you'd have to make a new class for that (a dagger wielding
Primal striker). Let's be honest with ourselves: 4e has enough space for two different Arcane Charisma based strikers who draw their powers from an external ideal. The Warlock and the Sorcerer are pretty similar (the difference being mostly that Sorcerers don't suck as much as Warlocks), but the game is richer for them both existing.
The truth is: while you can make a very good argument that a 4e class should have been "bigger" in terms of how many different characters it could cover, that's not actually what happened. And honestly, 4e doesn't have enough classes. Not by a long shot. A 4e class, including Paragon classes takes up about 12,000 words, and there should be a new one in every single book. Not just PHBs. Every book. If they come out with a book like Open Grave: Secrets of the Undead, it should have a playable Necromancer in it. Frankly, hardcover books that are mostly fluff like it and The Plane Below? They should have three to five classes in them. And no, I am not kidding.
It's going to be a long time of printing classes in every book before anyone is tired of it. We got (off the top of my head):
- Jester (Martial, Implement using Controller)
- Sniper (Shadow, Crossbow wielding Striker)
- Ninja (Psionic, Dagger wielding Defender)
- Gish (Arcane, Sword wielding Striker)
- Corsair (Arcane, Sword wielding Leader)
- Samurai (Martial, Sword Wielding Leader)
- Summoner (Arcane, Implement using Leader)
- Conduit (Divine, Implement using Striker)
- Sinker (Shadow, Sword using Defender)
- Trainer (Primal, Net using Defender)
- Brigand (Shadow, Club using Striker)
and so on. And on and on and on. Actually, the lack of a classplosion is I think the very worst thing that 4e did wrong. If you're going to make rogues be so limited in the amount of conceptual space they cover that they don't even include highwaymen and footpads who have clubs and saps - you can fit a lot of classes in. And you'd
better, because otherwise you won't be covering peoples' character concepts.
-Frank
Why buy splats when you can just get a single month of DDI and download all of the content up till the current month?
Seriously, if you have the corebooks, there's absolutely no reason to waste your money on splats when you can get the same content for like...what...15, 16 dollars?
They kind of screwed themselves with this one, but retail is starting to fizzle as a means of distributing RPG content, anyway.
QuoteAnd you'd better, because otherwise you won't be covering peoples' character concepts.
Or you could make the core material conceptually flexible. But that's bad for business.
With anecdotal stories of crappy sales of many 4E titles, one wonders whether a 4E PHB4 book will ever see the light of day.
Quote from: ggroy;383082With anecdotal stories of crappy sales of many 4E titles, one wonders whether a 4E PHB4 book will ever see the light of day.
I'm sure the content will come out eventually, but how that content will be distributed, I'm not sure.
PC games don't sell well at retail, but digitally distributed games has become a fair sized business. Likewise, I could see Wizards focusing on boardgames, corebooks/boxed sets, and accessories as their retail business, with splats/extra content appearing only in digital format, and still doing alright from a business perspective.
Quote from: Peregrin;383084I'm sure the content will come out eventually, but how that content will be distributed, I'm not sure.
I could see Wizards focusing on boardgames, corebooks/boxed sets, and accessories as their retail business, with splats/extra content appearing only in digital format, and still doing alright from a business perspective.
I can see something like this possibly happening, where the more "marginal" 4E crunch stuff is published as DDI only exclusives.
In principle, they could occasionally publish compilations of crunch stuff as Dragon Magazine Annual books, and compilations of adventures as Dungeon Magazine Annual books. Though with anecdotal stories of the rather crappy sales of these two books, one wonders whether WotC will still have the appetite to produce such books in the future.
I just posted on WOTC forum, asking why aren't there playtest for the new classes for next year since they had the Monk exactly a year ago.
@Frank, what I was trying to point out was that even if they produced all the new classes to fill up the archtypes, will people actually buy the books? PHB3 received many complaints, even from their own fans. There is a limit to how many defenders or leaders players can accept.
This goes hand in hand with the DDI and errata issue. DDI is killing books sale, but they need DDI to handle all the info. Alot of 4e fanbois swear upon the CB to create characters. With the recent C&D on Masterplan, suddenly all 4e games are on life support as well.
This whole "experimental sales model" based on their CCG isn't turning out well imo. Now they are going into boardgames, going head to head with FFG. Goodluck with that.
Quote from: FrankTrollman;383079If you're going to make rogues be so limited in the amount of conceptual space they cover that they don't even include highwaymen and footpads who have clubs and saps - you can fit a lot of classes in. And you'd better, because otherwise you won't be covering peoples' character concepts.
At this point, I'm assuming that Frank is coming to us from a parallel universe.
QuoteRuthless Ruffian
You are proficient with the club and the mace, and you can use those weapons with Sneak Attack or any rogue power or rogue paragon path power that normally requires a light blade. If you use a club or a mace to deliver an attack that has the rattling keyword, add your Strength modifier to the damage roll.
Came out in Martial Power. It works just fine.
Quote from: areola;383089I just posted on WOTC forum, asking why aren't there playtest for the new classes for next year since they had the Monk exactly a year ago.
Good point. I don't have a subscription to DDI, but the lack of playtests for new classes is quite telling.
Perhaps they dropped all previous plans several months ago, and refocused all their work on other more pressing issues such as the 4E Essentials and Gamma World books, board games, etc ...
Quote from: areola;383089With the recent C&D on Masterplan, suddenly all 4e games are on life support as well.
(Disclaimer: I've never used Masterplan).
What exactly would be the effect of Masterplan being decommissioned?
Quote from: ggroy;383093(Disclaimer: I've never used Masterplan).
What exactly would be the effect of Masterplan being decommissioned?
Masterplan basically gave players what was promised by WOTC initially, except the VTT and visualizer. It is a good campaign management software that is integrated with DDI info itself. It has a map maker that you can place monsters from the DDI into the map itself. People actually subscribe to DDI to use this software (which is a good thing for WOTC).
Now with it being C&D'ed, the lack of DDI integration frustrates 4e DMs as they heavily rely on it for running 4e games.
Damn, at this point, after typing this post, I wish D&D would still be a strictly pen & paper game.
Quote from: ggroy;383092Good point. I don't have a subscription to DDI, but the lack of playtests for new classes is quite telling.
Perhaps they dropped all previous plans several months ago, and refocused all their work on other more pressing issues such as the 4E Essentials and Gamma World books, board games, etc ...
There is no hype whatsoever for next year. Perhaps they are waiting for Gencon to make a big annoucement. Nobody is speculating what the next campaign setting for 2011 is as well.
With D&D branching out to different mediums, leaving Mearls alone to handle the rpg section of D&D, it will be his fantasy heartbreaker.
Quote from: areola;383095Masterplan basically gave players what was promised by WOTC initially, except the VTT and visualizer. It is a good campaign management software that is integrated with DDI info itself. It has a map maker that you can place monsters from the DDI into the map itself. People actually subscribe to DDI to use this software (which is a good thing for WOTC).
Now with it being C&D'ed, the lack of DDI integration frustrates 4e DMs as they heavily rely on it for running 4e games.
How much penetration has Masterplan made into the 4E DM'ing world?
How many DMs will most likely drop 4E, in the absence of Masterplan?
In my case with not using any computers in my tabletop rpg games (including 4E D&D), it wouldn't have directly affected me much at all. (I keep a calculator around which I don't really use much, other than the players using it to calculate their XP).
Quote from: areola;383096Nobody is speculating what the next campaign setting for 2011 is as well.
I've noticed this too. The speculation is rather subdued to almost nonexistent in recent months. A year ago at this time, the speculation was rather rampant and noisy on several message boards.
The "Future Releases" section of the WotC's D&D message board, is a rather low traffic mundane place these days.
http://community.wizards.com/go/forum/view/75882/135766/future_releases
Quote from: areola;383096Perhaps they are waiting for Gencon to make a big annoucement.
At this point, I can't think of any obvious big WotC announcement which would get my attention.
It would have to be something really unexpected to get my attention, such as WotC getting a license to do a Marvel Super Heroes rpg. (Whether it will use the FASERIP ruleset, or not).
Quote from: ggroy;383097How much penetration has Masterplan made into the 4E DM'ing world?
How many DMs will most likely drop 4E, in the absence of Masterplan?
In my case with not using any computers in my tabletop rpg games (including 4E D&D), it wouldn't have directly affected me much at all. (I keep a calculator around which I don't really use much, other than the players using it to calculate their XP).
Well, it's not to the point of dropping 4e, but fact that a free software managed to deliver what WOTC initially promised makes me wonder WTF is going on.
Yea, I visit the future release forums often to see what's up. The necromancer class is a popular request. There should be a rumour of that class being developed by now, but no.
Quote from: Thanlis;383091At this point, I'm assuming that Frank is coming to us from a parallel universe.
Ruthless Ruffian
You are proficient with the club and the mace, and you can use those weapons with Sneak Attack or any rogue power or rogue paragon path power that normally requires a light blade. If you use a club or a mace to deliver an attack that has the rattling keyword, add your Strength modifier to the damage roll.
Came out in Martial Power. It works just fine.
Good stuff. A feat to use a club properly...
Does this work with saps?
Does the feat undo the ability to just use a dagger in the first place?
Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;383142Good stuff. A feat to use a club properly...
That's not a feat actually, it's just a build option.
Wait, Doom doesn't know this?
There is no sap defined in 4e; if you wanted to use a sap, you'd just use the stats for a club and call it a sap. It'd work fine.
The build option (not feat) does not negate the ability to use a dagger.
Jeebus, get a grip. Although truth be told, not much point without Daggermaster (which used to be such a great paragon for non-rogues to be paragon rogues with).
Granted, I don't even have MP2. My most recent purchase was PHB 3...I'll learn my lesson eventually.
There is nothing inherently right or wrong with having a few broad classes or a lot of narrow classes. Both cover conceptual space equally well, and the number of people who will be offended that their class has to say "Knight" instead of "Fighter" in order to make some minor distinction or another will be roughly equivalent to the number of people who will be glad of the extra specificity allowed by telling the other players "I'm going to be playing a Knight."
4e D&D went for the narrow classes concept. Where the Swordmage literally has to use blades for his powers to work - the class does not cover hammer wielding warrior sorcerers. Which would be totally fine if they also made a Hammermage class. But they did not.
Adding additional powers and builds to classes just increases dumpster diving and obscure combos - it makes building characters harder and the results les balanced. Yes, there were some extra powers that needed printing (for example: Strength Paladins in the PHB did not have a power available at every level), but by and large the game should have simply written up new classes when they wanted to cover more conceptual ground. And they should have made a lot more classes. There are what, 26 classes at this point? And we still can't make a small reach weapon fighter or a necromancer? Ridiculous! Making a new class is the easiest thing in 4e, and they should be shoveling those things out.
-Frank
Quote from: areola;383048It does show that an edition hype only lasts for two years max. After that you need to come up with a revised, x.5 or an "essentials"..
...
I think Paizo's model of focusing on setting and adventures is a better model for rpgs.
If this rule of a "two year slump" for rpg sales holds universally these days, one wonders what Paizo will do when Pathfinder sales start to slump sometime next year in 2011.
Though a fine point is whether only the Pathfinder rulebook sales will slump, or will both the rulebooks and AP/supplement lines both slump in sales simultaneously. They'll have problems if both product lines slump at the same time.
At this point in time, Paizo doesn't appear to have enough "goodwill" to be able to get away with producing a Pathfinder 1.5E rulebook in a year or two, without igniting a lot of anger. Such a fallout could bring down a small company easily, unlike a corporate big gorilla.
Quote from: FrankTrollman;3831714e D&D went for the narrow classes concept. Where the Swordmage literally has to use blades for his powers to work - the class does not cover hammer wielding warrior sorcerers. Which would be totally fine if they also made a Hammermage class. But they did not.
Yes, 4e is really suffering from the lack of a Hammermage class. I'm not sure how any RPG has survived without it until now. (You could do a hammer wielding swordmage/warlock combo, btw, but it'd have to be a dwarf and I'm not sure that really makes the core Hammermage demographic happy.)
You can, btw, do a small reach fighter. There are two ways to do it; one is good, one is not so good.
Quote from: FrankTrollman;3831714e D&D went for the narrow classes concept. Where the Swordmage literally has to use blades for his powers to work - the class does not cover hammer wielding warrior sorcerers. Which would be totally fine if they also made a Hammermage class. But they did not.
Recognize where this comes from?
Tome of Battle (3.5) base classes, whose maneuvers were restricted by weapon choice. Like keying powers to abilities (as in, using CON or STR for the attack roll) I disliked the idea of not offering a more flexible system to begin with, as there is no compelling design rationale for it, only a marketing rationale ('this way we can sell more splats!'). A rogue using a different primary stat and/or using a different weapon shouldn't be a new
build; it should take 5 seconds of houseruling.
Quote from: Windjammer;383244Recognize where this comes from? Tome of Battle (3.5) base classes, whose maneuvers were restricted by weapon choice. Like keying powers to abilities (as in, using CON or STR for the attack roll) I disliked the idea of not offering a more flexible system to begin with, as there is no compelling design rationale for it, only a marketing rationale ('this way we can sell more splats!'). A rogue using a different primary stat and/or using a different weapon shouldn't be a new build; it should take 5 seconds of houseruling.
Nothing precludes it from taking 5 seconds of houseruling.
Have the player write down "club", tell the player that he can use clubs in place of light blades and move on. What's stopping you, exactly?
However, that also makes a more generic game. Eventually you could just reductio everything down to a single "Adventurer" class if you really wanted to, where everyone has access to everything. And yes, that's exactly what a few people really do want. That's Gurps, after all.
The real reason Ruffian rogues use a different build is because it actually
plays differently. Ruffian type rogues (which are the ones built on clubs and maces instead of light blades) can do something different than the Artful Dodger, Cunning Sneak, or Aerialist rogues. They have access to rattling powers- those not only rely on strength, but they apply an intimidation bonus- a fear effect. It makes an alternate set of tactics and feat choices than a "sneaky" type rogue would have very obvious.. and clearly highlights those choices.
Here's Ionos, my minotaur rogue. (http://iplay4e.appspot.com/characters/agdpcGxheTRlchQLEgtDaGFyYWN0ZXJWMhih3oUBDA)
She's not sneaky..at all. Often enough DM's mistake my character for a fighter (she is often on the front line, wears hide armor and shield..) She IS intimidating. She has a dex of 14, but a strength of 19. That was a natural choice, because if you choose rattling powers and you happen to be the Ruffian type of rogue, you get to add strength bonus to those attacks. Why is she even a rogue? Well, her story is that she started as a gladiator, and that's why she's lightly armored and unconventionally thuggish in her approach to combat.
Here's Coppervault, my dwarf rogue. (http://iplay4e.appspot.com/characters/agdpcGxheTRlchQLEgtDaGFyYWN0ZXJWMhip1KsBDA)
He *is* extremely sneaky. Perhaps he's not the best example, because I also gave him Lethal Hammer training- a dwarf feat that enables dwarf rogues to use hammers. But his build is Cunning Sneak. Every single one of his powers is about darting out of the darkness to hit, and returning back to the darkness. He was born in the Underdark and works for the Drow. His build reflects that.
Fun fact: They both have Pommel Smash as a daily power but use it differently. Ionos uses it as a follow-up to a charge in combat, and Coppervault only uses it when attacking from complete concealment or as a coup de grace.
Quote from: Abyssal Maw;383251Fun fact: They both have Pommel Smash as a daily power but use it differently. Ionos uses it as a follow-up to a charge in combat, and Coppervault only uses it when attacking from complete concealment or as a coup de grace.
So, that makes the power itself completely different? I had a Magic-User that would open a combat with
fireball, and another that would finish off the last few stragglers with a
fireball. Does that make the spell mechanically different in the two instances?
Quote from: StormBringer;383268So, that makes the power itself completely different? I had a Magic-User that would open a combat with fireball, and another that would finish off the last few stragglers with a fireball. Does that make the spell mechanically different in the two instances?
Reading Comprehension. The power is the same, the difference is in how it is used.
Quote from: Abyssal Maw;383270Reading Comprehension. The power is the same, the difference is in how it is used.
So, one power called 'Damage' is good enough, as long as everyone uses it differently?
Quote from: StormBringer;383271So, one power called 'Damage' is good enough, as long as everyone uses it differently?
Aw, come on, dude. OD&D doesn't suffer from every weapon doing the same 1d6 damage, right? ;)
Quote from: StormBringer;383271So, one power called 'Damage' is good enough, as long as everyone uses it differently?
Actually it's just an illustration of how two different builds create completely different fighting styles, even when the powers in some cases cross over. For example- Ruffian build characters who use powers with the rattling keyword, get to also add their strength bonus to damage. Ionos is a ruffian, but Coppervault's a sneak. Different builds, different takes on powers.
Is this not getting through to any of the people who actually do play D&D?
Also, can anyone tell me why this fuck is stalking my posts again?
Quote from: Thanlis;383277Aw, come on, dude. OD&D doesn't suffer from every weapon doing the same 1d6 damage, right? ;)
LOL I'm guessing you're talking to the wrong dude. Stormy's into AD&D mostly. ;)
Quote from: Thanlis;382905... Frank? What's the big logo on the bottom of that slide? Squint a bit, check out the word directly underneath "Dungeons & Dragons."
Did Frank respond to this?
Quote from: Thanlis;383277Aw, come on, dude. OD&D doesn't suffer from every weapon doing the same 1d6 damage, right? ;)
:)
It's a fair point, but like Benoist said, I was never much into OD&D. On the other hand, it wasn't too far out of its roots as a wargame at that point, and was mostly seen and played as an expansion for
Chainmail, except you took on the roles of individual heroes instead of whole squads.
Additionally, OD&D didn't hype itself as 'the most tacktikal gmae EVAR!!11!!', setting itself up to have a wide diversity of character types and builds. If the only real difference between two classes with the exact same power is how you play them, they went waaaaaaaaay overboard, and really should have just stuck with four basic classes and just suggestions for re-skinning and play strategies; or gone totally classless and allowed for builds from a common set of powers.
As it stands, which Frank mentions, there is no reason
not to make a dozen new classes every quarter for DDI, or at least generalize things a bit so you have a 'Weaponsmage' that can focus arcane power through any weapon they can wield. Certainly, it would have been even simpler to make weapons an implement and throw in a couple of extra guidelines or rules for that, if they didn't want to get caught up in class proliferation.
EDIT:
Which, upon reflection of my following post, it appears they are employing 'stealth' methods to get new classes into the mix, and just calling them 'builds'.
Quote from: Abyssal Maw;383278Actually it's just an illustration of how two different builds create completely different fighting styles, even when the powers in some cases cross over. For example- Ruffian build characters who use powers with the rattling keyword, get to also add their strength bonus to damage. Ionos is a ruffian, but Coppervault's a sneak. Different builds, different takes on powers.
Then, in fact, you could play Coppervault in the exact same manner as Ionos, since the selection of powers appears to be irrelevant. All you have to do is have the dwarf stop sneaking around and start confronting people, right?
It's not like you are
forbidden from taking powers under a 'ruffian' build for your sneaky character. I suppose you wouldn't get the bonus for the 'rattling' keyword, but now we are into the territory of 'sub-classes', and your objections (were you ever to coherently state them) would be negated. After all, if Ruffians have a special set of powers, or a special set of rules governing existing powers, it really isn't any different than having a Ruffian class. Perhaps they are releasing new classes on a regular basis, only cloaked in the guise of 'builds'. Kits, anyone?
QuoteIs this not getting through to any of the people who actually do play D&D?
Clearly, it isn't. I would say that is based primarily on two factors:
a) You are an unrelenting shill that uses inchoate arguments that are often internally inconsistent, but at least as often, they are internally contradictory. This stems from an all consuming need to defend an activity that is far to intertwined with your self-identity.
b) There is no real direction for D&D anymore, because the very people designing the game have no idea where it came from and no idea where it is going. They are madly pushing out product with no big picture or design goals to measure against.
QuoteAlso, can anyone tell me why this fuck is stalking my posts again?
For what must be into the third dozen of times, when you stop saying stupid shit, I will stop pointing out that you are saying stupid shit.
Quote from: StormBringer;383305Then, in fact, you could play Coppervault in the exact same manner as Ionos, since the selection of powers appears to be irrelevant. All you have to do is have the dwarf stop sneaking around and start confronting people, right?
It's not like you are forbidden from taking powers under a 'ruffian' build for your sneaky character. I suppose you wouldn't get the bonus for the 'rattling' keyword, but now we are into the territory of 'sub-classes', and your objections (were you ever to coherently state them) would be negated. After all, if Ruffians have a special set of powers, or a special set of rules governing existing powers, it really isn't any different than having a Ruffian class. Perhaps they are releasing new classes on a regular basis, only cloaked in the guise of 'builds'. Kits, anyone?
I think this is where your lack of knowledge of how D&D works really gets you. The powers are not simply identical ways to do damage. And although they aren't "forbidden" they do describe the character. Gloaming cut, for example, is an attack where you get to attack and then slip away into the darkness. Coppervault has that one as an at-will. Ionos, by contrast has powers like Termination Threat.. which is a direct type of attack, and reflects who she is.
QuoteClearly, it isn't. I would say that is based primarily on two factors:
a) You are an unrelenting shill that uses inchoate arguments that are often internally inconsistent, but at least as often, they are internally contradictory. This stems from an all consuming need to defend an activity that is far to intertwined with your self-identity.
But you're actually the shill! Isn't that what the promotion of "vintage" is all about? You no longer matter and you think vigorously promoting a keyword changes things. But all it does is identify a whole set of games as "old" and Collectible". I actually play, this is my hobby. This is why I'm here. I actually like this stuff and I'm involved in it. I honestly don't know why you are still hanging around. You spent 10 years in the ditch hating D20, and now you're going to spend 10 more resenting people enjoying themselves and puking up bile and resentment through your nose? What's the point? Is this fun for you?
Quoteb) There is no real direction for D&D anymore, because the very people designing the game have no idea where it came from and no idea where it is going. They are madly pushing out product with no big picture or design goals to measure against.
But you wouldn't know any of this.. You're just an outsider! You wouldn't recognize or acknowledge any direction for D&D because you have so much hatred towards the people who make it and play it. I dunno, maybe you used to be a gamer, but now all you are is a sideline dweller with an empty opinion.
QuoteFor what must be into the third dozen of times, when you stop saying stupid shit, I will stop pointing out that you are saying stupid shit.
I have a feeling what you actually do is, you search very carefully for anything I am saying, and wherever possible you need to jump in and confront me. But it goes nowhere. You are literally too fucking dumb and worthless to present a valid opinion. Don't bother..you don't have one! Why do you keep trying, and why are you still following me around?
Oh, well. I'd actually play a good old AD&D campaign; I have fond memories.
Quote from: StormBringer;383303Which, upon reflection of my following post, it appears they are employing 'stealth' methods to get new classes into the mix, and just calling them 'builds'.
Yeah, that's exactly it. It's exception-based design, which is not just a slogan -- D&D 4e was designed to evolve much like Magic, in that you can change the feel of the game quite a bit by altering available options without changing core rules. The best 4e classes play fairly differently depending on build.
Exactly, and the not-so-good classes only have one build (at best).
Which begs the question, what harm would there be if they just made each build into a class, rather than risk (and fail) the dumpster-dive fest.
I don't know if 4e, or even D&D, needs a Hammermage, mind you, but as soon as you say 'elven bow ranger', you know everything there is to know about it, right down to charisma score (if level is given) and approximate list of magic items. Yes, theoretically, there are all sorts of elven bow rangers out there...in practice? Not so much. By making bow and two melee weapon both in one class, you open up the dumpster-diving a bit without really helping elven bow rangers.
Quote from: Doom;383319Exactly, and the not-so-good classes only have one build (at best).
Which begs the question, what harm would there be if they just made each build into a class, rather than risk (and fail) the dumpster-dive fest.
I don't know if 4e, or even D&D, needs a Hammermage, mind you, but as soon as you say 'elven bow ranger', you know everything there is to know about it, right down to charisma score (if level is given) and approximate list of magic items. Yes, theoretically, there are all sorts of elven bow rangers out there...in practice? Not so much. By making bow and two melee weapon both in one class, you open up the dumpster-diving a bit without really helping elven bow rangers.
So I have to ask.. You weren't aware of Ruffian builds, which have been around for almost 2 years. Do you use the character builder, and if so.. when was it updated? Because all of the classes have multiple builds ( I think Assassin and Artificer are still kinda sparse). So not only are there new powers getting dropped all of the time, (they come out in Dragon..) but there are also new builds (like the Hunter ranger, which is another take on an archer, and the Marauder which is more like a scout).. and even something a bit obscure like the Archer Warlord (which could easily be dressed up as a concept ranger).
So.. which classes have only one build. I'll go into the builder and count them out for you.
I don't really know what you mean by dumpster diving.
The other thing I wanted to mention: I have plenty of love for AD&D, but I think it only really shines as a campaign game.. and there is neither the time nor the players to support AD&D around me. (Which is to say, there *are* players, but they are the beard-chewing sort you don't want to game with). The time is my own issue I guess.
Quote from: Abyssal Maw;383307I think this is where your lack of knowledge...
So, again, you have nothing except trying to appear the expert with all the answers.
By simply regurgiquoting marketing blurbs, you have become what you most despise in others: irrelevant. No one takes what you say seriously, because you are unable to solve even the simplest of problems. Instead you resort to claims that other people are doing things wrong, or there must be a problem with their game, or they haven't read the rules correctly.
Quote...and you think vigorously promoting a keyword changes things.
Your entire philosophy hinges on 'keywords'.
Quote from: Abyssal Maw;383320The other thing I wanted to mention: I have plenty of love for AD&D, but I think it only really shines as a campaign game.. and there is neither the time nor the players to support AD&D around me. (Which is to say, there *are* players, but they are the beard-chewing sort you don't want to game with). The time is my own issue I guess.
Do you mean that AD&D only shines in a long-winded campaign as opposed to a one-shot? What makes you say that?
Hey, I forgot about some options in a book I don't have. If none of my players want to use any of it, I don't waste time learning about it unless it helps me in some way, sorry.
Apologies, I was unclear, and was referenceing Thanlis' post. Yes, classes in theory have different builds, but that's not reality.
Like Thanlis says, the 'best' classes play differently depending on build. The not best (i.e., all others), don't. Evidently, and much of this has to do with limitations on the viability of 'alternate' builds...they don't play differently because those non-viable builds aren't played.
Consider one of the best classes, the Ranger. Seriously, the TWF ranger has very little in common (twin strike, quarry...and we're done) with the bow ranger, not even the same 'one true race' for the class build. So why not abandon the illusion and just make those two separate classes, rather than say 'it's two different builds for the same class'.
Yes, sure, you can play a strength 12 fighter with a 2h weapon, and it'll play different than a strength 18 fighter with a sword and shield...but I'm not really talking about that scenario. Focusing on reality here.
And you not knowing what 'dumpster diving' refers to? Again, I don't understand how such a grand old expert can keep saying stuff like this, I really don't. It's like saying you use a certain power for coup-de-grace...lol wut, indeed.
Quote from: Thanlis;383312Oh, well. I'd actually play a good old AD&D campaign; I have fond memories.
I have a Castle Amber game that is itching to get started up again on this very board. :)
QuoteYeah, that's exactly it. It's exception-based design, which is not just a slogan -- D&D 4e was designed to evolve much like Magic, in that you can change the feel of the game quite a bit by altering available options without changing core rules. The best 4e classes play fairly differently depending on build.
I don't think exception-based design is the best method for an RPG, as there is a bit too much going on to adjudicate everything from a central position, but I am sure there are games out there that execute that method with aplomb.
For myself, I don't think that changing the title from 'Thief' to 'Rogue' or from 'Magic-User' to 'Wizard' really changes the feel sufficiently, but to each their own. If it works for most people, more power to them. Of course, that is a wildly simplistic example, but I tend to look at the underlying mechanics, so anything beyond that is largely cosmetic in my book. For example, in AD&D, an Illusionist plays very differently than a Magic-User because of the underlying spell selection. There is a degree of overlap, of course, and a very subjective assessment of that overlap would determine how similar they are in play. For some, a half-dozen spells that are unique to the Illusionist is enough to make things different. For others, even a half-dozen spells overlapping is too much. Same with Rogues: some get Strength bonuses, some get Dex bonuses, and there are a few powers scattered around to take advantage of that. Whoopty-shit, they are both Thieves. ;)
Quote from: Doom;383326Apologies, I was unclear, and was referenceing Thanlis' post. Yes, classes in theory have different builds, just as a rogue named Bob is different from a rogue named Fred.
But, like Thanlis says, the 'best' classes play differently depending on build. The not best (i.e., all others), don't. Evidently, and much of this has to do with limitations on the viability of 'alternate' builds. Seriously, the TWF ranger has very little in common with the bow ranger, not even the same 'one true race' for the class build. So why not abandon the illusion and just make those two separate classes, rather than say 'it's two different builds for the same class'.
Because often enough, they share some of the same powers. The Coppervault/Ionos example should have tipped you off!
Which of the classes have only one build though?
QuoteYes, sure, you can play a strength 12 fighter, and it'll play different than a strength 18 fighter...but I'm not really talking about that scenario, either. Focusing on reality here.
And you not knowing what 'dumpster diving' refers to? Again, I don't understand how such a grand old expert can keep saying stuff like this, I really don't.
I think it must only have a meaning at one of the hater-boards. Can you enlighten us all?
Doom: Never heard of dumpster diving. If I ain´t heard it, it´s probably bullshit anyway. Such it was with deep battle, just to say something YOU don´t understand.
Also, 4e is NOT exception based design. Because all possible mutations of "exceptions" have been handled beforehand, and are closely defined by level.
Save vs Shmotz or make the player hop on one leg for a minute is EXCEPTION based design.
"Power at level X makes X+2+1/2y damage; a shift reduces this by Z per square."
That´s not EXCEPTION, that´s an all-encompassing algortihm.
Uh, lots of classes don't have more than one viable build. Warlock, for instance, has a few issues. You can dance around it all you'd like, but if nobody uses it, and nobody wants to use it...it's probably not useful. Honest, and there's nothing wrong with that. Basically any class that I've seen 3 or more of at my table, but only one build, I rather figure probably doesn't have more than one VIABLE (you seem to keep not seeing that word) build. It's fair to use what the actual players think, right?
Yes, we can split hairs here...but I can pick up a baby book of names and use it to create 8,000,000 'different' rogues. But let's be rational on this issue.
You'd probably ask Thanlis about this, I was just agreeing with him.
Apologies, I thought the phrase was pretty self-evident as to the meaning. "Dumpster Diving" is a Dungeons and Dragons concept that also applies to other games, like 4e. It's when a player scroungres through tons of books (or in this case, the character builder, that really facilitates it) looking for rules loopholes and bizzaro combinations that lead to unexpected advantages. Typically you see these things closed by errata, eventually.
(It occurs to me, I've never seen it formally defined, but that's the meaning I always took it to be)
In D&D, for example, when some guy says "Hey, I just rolled up a kobold spellcaster", you kinda know what's coming up.
Similarly, a dragonborn fighter that 'happens' to have cold breath and a reach weapon is heading somewhere specific with that (errata'd out now, however).
But, there's still plenty of builds that are clearly dumpster-dive-a-rific, such as the low-Int wizard who suddenly becomes a paragon Divine Oracle, and other examples abound.
Quote from: Doom;383335Uh, lots of classes don't have more than one viable build. Warlock, for instance, has a few issues. You can dance around it all you'd like, but if nobody uses it, and nobody wants to use it...it's probably not useful. Honest, and there's nothing wrong with that. Basically any class that I've seen 3 or more of at my table, but only one build, I rather figure probably doesn't have more than one build. It's fair to use what the actual players think, right?
Sample size of six? Nah; for all I know, you only have two players who want to play rangers and both of them strongly prefer melee combat, so they never play ranged rogues. There's too much possibility for bias based on the small sample size.
Anyways, I'm not sure it makes a huge difference. The reason you lump multiple builds into one class is so that you have a richer design space -- it makes it trivial for a club-based rogue to dip into the more finesse-based rogue powers if desired for whatever reason.
There's no right answer to where you draw the line; I like what Stormbringer said, personally. Subjective decision. Sometimes people make decisions I disagree with, subjectively. I think the runepriest isn't sufficiently different than the Str-oriented cleric to maintain my interest, but I don't need to go into some rant about how WotC is full of gormless fools just because I don't happen to like that particular call.
Hmm, not sure where you got the idea I've only played 4e once in the last few years...but no, sample size is over 6, I promise. Even factoring in APs somehow, I've still have more than six different characters at my table, probably more like four dozen, more if you count hobby shop play.
But, like you said, the best classes have different builds that play differently.
The ones that don't, don't, and the primary reason for this is the 'alternate' builds don't work well enough to be played in the first place. I've had more than one player try a non-viable build and simply give up mid-game to bring in a another character. Yes, that's only happened half a dozen times and proves nothing.
But the fact remains, the best classes do indeed have different builds that play differently. It does occur to me that perhaps sometimes there were fighters or whatever playing different builds, and I just couldn't tell that they played differently, but that rather begs the question: if you can't tell they're different, are they really different? Or is simply enough to say they play different, and, by 4e design paradigm, that makes them different?
I'm not sure the 4e paradigm transfers to the real world that way. In my opinion, of course.
Quote from: Doom;383340Hmm, not sure where you got the idea I've only played 4e once in the last few years...but no, sample size is over 6, I promise. Even factoring in APs somehow, I've still have more than six different characters at my table..
No, not how many characters.. how many players?
I've seen a lot of different characters.. And the real deciding factor is the player!
Example: when I DM at a big show, that's 7 slots where I am unlikely to ever see the same face twice in any table, and all tables are likely to be full of 6 players each. That's 42 in a single weekend. Smaller shows I might see some repeat players.
I am pretty sure I have DM'd for almost everyone at the local weekly meetup (http://warhorn.net/GamesAndStuffLFR/attendee/list.php) at least once. Currently that's 109 players. There's some repeats in there, and a few people who showed up to try it once and never came back.. but there are also people who never signed up and showed up anyhow. I think it might balance out. There's a ton of guys who play out in DC and VA that I don't see that often, and the Frederick Meetup has 95 members (http://www.meetup.com/Frederick-RPG-Consortium/members/). I haven't Dm'd for everyone in Frederick by a longshot, but they mostly know me by name.
I'm telling you, there's a lot of diversity when you look at the larger group.
Quote from: Doom;383340Hmm, not sure where you got the idea I've only played 4e once in the last few years...but no, sample size is over 6, I promise. Even factoring in APs somehow, I've still have more than six different characters at my table, probably more like four dozen, more if you count hobby shop play.
Six players, not six characters.
Also, dude, really. Shut the fuck up about the APs. We had that entire discussion and you didn't mention that your players finish their adventuring days with 12 dailies unused. "Oh, we don't use our resources willy-nilly!" Yeah, I guess not.
I mean, you're not going to shut up, but just so you know -- I know you're full of shit.
Quote from: Doom;383335Uh, lots of classes don't have more than one viable build. Warlock, for instance, has a few issues. You can dance around it all you'd like, but if nobody uses it, and nobody wants to use it...it's probably not useful. Honest, and there's nothing wrong with that. Basically any class that I've seen 3 or more of at my table, but only one build, I rather figure probably doesn't have more than one VIABLE (you seem to keep not seeing that word) build. It's fair to use what the actual players think, right?
Yes, we can split hairs here...but I can pick up a baby book of names and use it to create 8,000,000 'different' rogues. But let's be rational on this issue.
We aren't talking about character names. Just to be clear.
Quote from: Abyssal Maw;383342No, not how many characters.. how many players?
Two dozen or so...I don't sit there and take lists of names. But why the incessant discussion about me/my experience/everyone in a 50 mile radius of me who plays, instead of an actual adult conversation on the actual rules in the actual books?
Why avoid the discussion so?
QuoteI'm telling you, there's a lot of diversity when you look at the larger group. (extensive boasting snipped)
Ok, so now you want it to be about you. Very nice penis, you must use APs constantly. I agree, large groups of people are diverse.
I didn't know there was a question on this, either. That wasn't the point of the discussion either, and I'll make a reasonable guess why we can't have that discussion, and move on.
Let's just give this one up, eh?
Quote from: Settembrini;383333Also, 4e is NOT exception based design. Because all possible mutations of "exceptions" have been handled beforehand, and are closely defined by level.
Save vs Shmotz or make the player hop on one leg for a minute is EXCEPTION based design.
"Power at level X makes X+2+1/2y damage; a shift reduces this by Z per square."
That´s not EXCEPTION, that´s an all-encompassing algortihm.
Hmm, but how about magic the gathering card design? Each creature summoned also ties to how much Mana it costs.
AFAIK, MtG needs to introduce "new algorihtms" (descriptors) every now and then and is economically viable ONLY because they invalidate (and reintroduce) older stuff on a planned basis for tournament play.
Also, MtG is NOT exception based design in the sense it is cited for 4e. MtG is exception based design in that in Cosmic Encounter there are basic rules and the powers of the Zap cards and Race cards present circumstances where the basic rules are EXEMPTED from applying!
As I said, excpetion based design is when you have an effect that says: "swap your HP with a monster of your choice, if bloodied." or "replay last round". or "you may redecide which power you ACTUALLY used after all roles have been made"
In a away it´s "exemption" based design.
Quote from: Windjammer;383244Recognize where this comes from? Tome of Battle (3.5) base classes, whose maneuvers were restricted by weapon choice. Like keying powers to abilities (as in, using CON or STR for the attack roll) I disliked the idea of not offering a more flexible system to begin with, as there is no compelling design rationale for it, only a marketing rationale ('this way we can sell more splats!'). A rogue using a different primary stat and/or using a different weapon shouldn't be a new build; it should take 5 seconds of houseruling.
Wonder if the 4E designers ever thought of creating a D&D with no classes. Though such a system would probably be nasty in the character creation process, which may turn off new players. Probably starts to resemble Mutants & Masterminds.
Yup. Well, that's my interpretation of where this was headed:
QuoteRob: Yes, many! I'll run through a few of our abandoned notions, roughly in the order in which we abandoned them.
Power Keywords: The first draft of the power system assigned keywords to every power and had the notion that different character classes and class builds would have varying access to the keywords, so that powers were cross-class. That was a bad idea for D&D's class-based system in many ways, though I presume you could organize some other game around such a system.
http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4spot/20090313 (http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4spot/20090313)
Quote from: Doom;383335Apologies, I thought the phrase was pretty self-evident as to the meaning. "Dumpster Diving" is a Dungeons and Dragons concept that also applies to other games, like 4e. It's when a player scroungres through tons of books (or in this case, the character builder, that really facilitates it) looking for rules loopholes and bizzaro combinations that lead to unexpected advantages. Typically you see these things closed by errata, eventually.
(It occurs to me, I've never seen it formally defined, but that's the meaning I always took it to be)
I had not seen the term 'Dumpster Diving' applied to gaming before this thread but from context I had gotten exactly that meaning. When you first used it I said out loud "Ah! So that's what you call it."
Quote from: jrients;383537I had not seen the term 'Dumpster Diving' applied to gaming before this thread but from context I had gotten exactly that meaning. When you first used it I said out loud "Ah! So that's what you call it."
Wonder which publishers were the most egregious purveyors of crap for "dumpster divers".
During the d20 glut, most likely it would have been d20 3pp companies like Mongoose, Fast Forward, etc ...
It's always been with us, but decades ago there were only a couple books, at best, you could flip through looking for cracks in the rules.
It was only when D20 came out, and extensive 3PP, that there seriously was a 'dumpster' sized collection of stuff you could wade through. Of course, only the hard core, dedicated player (hopefully with deep pockets or helpful FLGS owner) could do this sort of thing.
4e went one better with the character builder, now you don't really have to be able to read or even have the books to have your own personal dumpster to dive in. Granted, the system really is all about '+1 to hit' as far as optimization goes, but folks still find some pretty amazing holes from time to time.
Remember Abominations (http://wiki.white-wolf.com/worldofdarkness/index.php?title=Abomination)?
Quote from: Doom;383546It's always been with us, but decades ago there were only a couple books, at best, you could flip through looking for cracks in the rules.
With the right DM and a stack of Dragon magazines you could do wonders.
It just seems like the Character Builder and the philosophy of making everything official content completely negates that entire concept. Is this really a 3rd Edition issue?
Quote from: Thanlis;383548Remember Abominations (http://wiki.white-wolf.com/worldofdarkness/index.php?title=Abomination)?
Oh for sure. WW made a big mistake to actually quantify Abominations in game terms. The prospect of meeting one, even rumors of such a creature existing, were enough to make PC shit in their pants.
After... PCs started to want to BUILD some. *shakes head*
NOT the worse I saw though. The worse I saw was a Gypsy Werewolf Mummified who was later Embraced. Or somesuch.
Proof that stating stuff or more broadly, providing all the rules you can for anything under the Sun, isn't always a good idea...
Quote from: jrients;383550With the right DM and a stack of Dragon magazines you could do wonders.
Several DMs I knew back in the day, banned 1E Unearthed Arcana and just about everything from Dragon Magazine which was not published in official 1E AD&D rulebooks prior to 1985.
Quote from: Abyssal Maw;383563It just seems like the Character Builder and the philosophy of making everything official content completely negates that entire concept. Is this really a 3rd Edition issue?
Nah, it's a general issue. It's not about official vs. non-official, it's about having a big corpus of material to search around in. Which, yeah, has been available since Dragon started publishing articles allowing you to roll stats with 9d6 drop 6. ;)
Quote from: Thanlis;383578Nah, it's a general issue. It's not about official vs. non-official, it's about having a big corpus of material to search around in. Which, yeah, has been available since Dragon started publishing articles allowing you to roll stats with 9d6 drop 6. ;)
We used that table in the back of the UA, but changed things a bit.
9d6 = d4+14
8d6 = d6+12
... and so on.
I would probably use something similar today if someone really wanted to play a particular class, but most likely it would be the d4+14 for prime requisite, d6+12 if there is a secondary, or 4d6 drop one for everything else. Maybe 4d6 drop one for the next choice, then 3d6 straight up.
Quote from: StormBringer;383594We used that table in the back of the UA, but changed things a bit.
9d6 = d4+14
8d6 = d6+12
... and so on.
I would probably use something similar today if someone really wanted to play a particular class, but most likely it would be the d4+14 for prime requisite, d6+12 if there is a secondary, or 4d6 drop one for everything else. Maybe 4d6 drop one for the next choice, then 3d6 straight up.
UBER STATS!!!
The first ever real human racial ability ?
Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;383625UBER STATS!!!
The first ever real human racial ability ?
I don't recall ever using it regularly. One of those cinematic things, the 'leading characters' instead of 'supporting roles' kinds of thing. Rather than fiddle the numbers, just pick the class and go.
Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;383625UBER STATS!!!
The first ever real human racial ability ?
The first ever human racial abilities were "can play a cleric" and "no level limit".
Wonder WotC will do if the 4E Essentials product line sells well, but the older 4E D&D hardcover titles sales continually decline.
Quote from: ggroy;383719Wonder WotC will do if the 4E Essentials product line sells well, but the older 4E D&D hardcover titles sales continually decline.
It's weird because they still seem to be reigning supreme and not declining at all.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/bestsellers/books/16211/ref=pd_ts_b_nav
Quote from: Abyssal Maw;383720It's weird because they still seem to be reigning supreme and not declining at all.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/bestsellers/books/16211/ref=pd_ts_b_nav
Man that is a fuck of a lot of D&D 4e books. How many books have they released now? Its like SUPER SPLAT :)
Quote from: Abyssal Maw;383720It's weird because they still seem to be reigning supreme and not declining at all.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/bestsellers/books/16211/ref=pd_ts_b_nav
The 4e books could be #1 among their peers and still have sales that are declining and/or considered unacceptable to WotC.
Quote from: jrients;383722The 4e books could be #1 among their peers and still have sales that are declining and/or considered unacceptable to WotC.
Well, we can imagine a lot of things. And if we fantasize enough, and get our wounded feelings involved, we can sort of create an entire mythical perception that things are exactly the opposite of what they are in reality. I don't see how that helps anyone though.
Only WotC's upper management and internal bean counters know what exactly the criterion is for "acceptable" sales of D&D stuff. For the rest of us, it is largely a guessing game.
What we also don't know is how exactly is amazon generating these sales ranking lists, and what exactly these rankings represent.
For perspective at this present moment, the sales ranks of the top five 4E D&D titles are:
4E Player's Strategy Guide: Sales Rank #2,190
4E Player's Handbook 3: Sales Rank #2,560
4E DM screen: Sales Rank #4,036
4E Monster Manual 1: Sales Rank #5,743
Slaying Stone: Sales Rank #5,759
In contrast, a random title from amazon's top 100 list:
Laura Bush's autobiography: Sales Rank #25
Quote from: Abyssal Maw;383720It's weird because they still seem to be reigning supreme and not declining at all.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/bestsellers/books/16211/ref=pd_ts_b_nav
I think it will be easier to tell the difference between Essentials & Hardcover sales once the Essentials books actually come out.
That aside - the top selling product there is #2,190 in Amazon Books, which makes it not even in the Top 100 for SF&F Books (the last physical book in the SF&F Top 100 is World War Z, which is #679 in books, so D&D is a long way adrift of the SF&F Top 100).
And only having 12 4E books outselling the 3.5 PHB can't be good either.
(Jrients: OK good call on level limits. Likewise thanks to AM for the build clarification...I'm not doing so well on this thread).
Yes, difficult to judge how overall "Edition Wars!" progress is going without solid information. Aside from sales figures - which may not even be that indicative of what people are playing here in the Golden Age of Piracy - I'm particularly fascinated by (say) what social media monitoring would indicate.
Just for curiousity's sake I had a look at what free blog monitoring shows up, but all the tools I've seen that give automated sentiment analysis or more media type coverage such as twitter are quite expensive.
D&D search on blogpulse (http://www.blogpulse.com/trend?query1=D%26D+AND+4E&label1=&query2=D%26D+AND%20%20+3.5&label2=&query3=OD%26D&label3=&days=60&x=28&y=4)
Cut the WotC guys some slack chaps.
These are all 2nd or 3rd teir splat books you wouldn't expect high sales of these sorts of books especially with the DDI
The fact that the 4e rules giftset is still in the top ten after 2 years of the game being released is actually pretty good. You would have to assume the majority of these are going to new players (although as I stated previously in reference to Monopoly a fair % may well be as gifts as opposed to games that will actually be played).
Quote from: jibbajibba;383732(although as I stated previously in reference to Monopoly a fair % may well be as gifts as opposed to games that will actually be played).
I got a Monopoly game for xmas when I was a kid. It was only ever played once at the time, and was put in storage for 20+ years until it was played a second time.
Quote from: jibbajibba;383732The fact that the 4e rules giftset is still in the top ten after 2 years of the game being released is actually pretty good. You would have to assume the majority of these are going to new players
A number of years ago, I gave a D&D starter set (during the 3.5E era) to a younger relative.
http://www.amazon.com/Basic-Game-Dungeon-Dragons-Roleplaying/dp/0786934093
I later found out they couldn't figure out how to play it. (The kid's parents were not gamer types, and lived in another town).
Quote from: ggroy;383733I got a Monopoly game for xmas when I was a kid. It was only ever played once at the time, and was put in storage for 20+ years until it was played a second time.
That is exactly what I am talking about :)
"What does little ggroy want for Christmas?"
"He really likes games at the moment."
"Great, I'll get him something like that then," goes out and buys monopoly.
"What do you want for your birthday ggroy?"
"Well you can never have too much D&D stuff honey."
"Great," goes out and buys 4e gift set even though ggroy already has a copy of all the book in it.
Quote from: jibbajibba;383721Man that is a fuck of a lot of D&D 4e books. How many books have they released now? Its like SUPER SPLAT :)
Approximately 50+ books (core, splatbooks, modules) over the last two years, depending on how one wants to count them.
So.. just to get this straight.. you guys think the Core book gift set is kinda like a popular impulse buy?
Quote from: Abyssal Maw;383723Well, we can imagine a lot of things. And if we fantasize enough, and get our wounded feelings involved, we can sort of create an entire mythical perception that things are exactly the opposite of what they are in reality. I don't see how that helps anyone though.
I don't know how "wounded" one has to be to wonder what would happen if Essentials does better than 4e. I would think there are people at WotC who wonder the same thing. And I would think they would want the next think they make to sell better than the last thing they made.
Quote from: Abyssal Maw;383740So.. just to get this straight.. you guys think the Core book gift set is kinda like a popular impulse buy?
If I had to choose an impulse buy 4E title, that would probably be it.
If I didn't want to pay as much, I suppose I would pick up the 4E PHB1.
Quote from: jrients;383744I don't know how "wounded" one has to be to wonder what would happen if Essentials does better than 4e. I would think there are people at WotC who wonder the same thing. And I would think they would want the next think they make to sell better than the last thing they made.
Well, just to be clear: Essentials IS 4e.
And (speculation) I am absolutely convinced the boxed set(s)- there's more than one-- are going to sell more copies than the hardcovers, I think that's a matter of price point alone.
Quote from: jrients;383705The first ever human racial abilities were "can play a cleric" and "no level limit".
Win. :)
Quote from: jrients;383744I don't know how "wounded" one has to be to wonder what would happen if Essentials does better than 4e. I would think there are people at WotC who wonder the same thing. And I would think they would want the next think they make to sell better than the last thing they made.
So far on amazon, the new 4E titles up to February 2011 have shown up. It's not exactly an impressive 2011 lineup so far: a tile set, Nentir Vale gazetteer, and a "deluxe" DM screen.
They're eagerly waiting for September (in 4 months), to see whether sales of the first few 4E Essentials titles are good or not (ie. basic red box set, first Player's Essentials book).
In the meantime, I wouldn't be surprised if the new advance listings of 4E titles which show up on amazon over the next few months, will be rather mundane and/or expected titles such as the DMG3. They're probably biding time at this point, until September.
Quote from: Abyssal Maw;383746Well, just to be clear: Essentials IS 4e.
How do you know that? I thought the products weren't out yet. Are you regurgitating the hype or have you seen the texts?
QuoteAnd (speculation) I am absolutely convinced the boxed set(s)- there's more than one-- are going to sell more copies than the hardcovers, I think that's a matter of price point alone.
So your earlier retort was based upon you falling for the trollbait wording rather than discussing the fairly interesting issue of what happens next if Essentials markedly outperform the baseline 4e products. Now that you've gotten the kneejerk defensiveness out of your system, what do you think might happen if the Essentials line is a blockbuster? Or, going the other way, what if it fizzles out?
Quote from: jrients;383764Or, going the other way, what if it fizzles out?
Depends.
If (both) the Essentials line fizzles and older 4E D&D line continues to decline, this would be the doomsday case where WotC may very well downsize the 4E D&D group even more. (ie. Mearls may be out of a job).
If the Essentials line fizzles, but the 4E D&D line remains at an equilibrium bumping along at the bottom via DDI subscriptions, I wouldn't be surprised if they end up publishing less books (or exiting the book business altogether) and refocus their efforts on DDI.
At this point, I suspect they'll bring out a new 5E D&D edition when DDI subscription money is declining significantly.
Quote from: jrients;383764what do you think might happen if the Essentials line is a blockbuster? Or, going the other way, what if it fizzles out?
If it's a blockbuster, I'd imagine that the Essentials would become WotC's focus. I can hardly imagine that the WotC management would recreate the TSR scenario, when several ex-WotC employees (the "ex" might be key, here) pointed out that the over-diversification/spread of the D&D brand was a major issue in its crash at the end of the 90s. So, going by this logic, Essentials would in effect become "D&D", up to Fifth edition, which would pick up ideas from the Essentials and run from there.
If the Essentials fizzle out, I'd expect some other experiments to take place, up to Fifth edition.
Quote from: jrients;383764How do you know that? I thought the products weren't out yet. Are you regurgitating the hype or have you seen the texts?
I'm going to assume this is rhetorical, because I think you already know the answer, Jeff. :)
Quote from: jrients;383764How do you know that? I thought the products weren't out yet. Are you regurgitating the hype or have you seen the texts?
Well, I was at the seminar at DDXP. They were very clear about it. Some of the details weren't very obvious at the time (like.. "will the Rules compendium be in the DM Essentials box?" which I think the answer now is 'yes it will' and "what levels are we talking about here..1-2 or 1-3 or 1-5.." and I think the answer is 1-3 now.)
But they were real clear that Essentials is just D&D4e. They even clarified the point twice. And when someone asked why anyone would rebuy it, they said "Well, people who already have it might not, but we included some new builds and the boxed set is going to have some other goodies. We are hoping that new players will pick this up."
I am pretty sure Essentials is about strategy, not content. The issue is- there are three Players Handbooks now (and possibly going to be more). I've seen dumb guys sneer things like "How many players handbooks do they need?", and although it's obvious to a 4E player that you only need the first one (the other two are just additional content).. it wouldn't be clear to a new player right at first.
THIS is I think the problem when you just assume that everything has to be like the stuff that preceeded it.
(http://cn1.kaboodle.com/hi/img/c/0/0/1a/c/AAAADAo1fusAAAAAABrKAg.jpg) <---case in point.
D&D 3.5 came out as hardcover books, so 4e came out the same way. D&D 3.5 had a PHB 2, so of course 4e was going to follow suit. And they even came up with the idea that they would have player content in a player book and DM content in a DMs book, and so on. (In 3e they sort of mixed up- see also Stormwrack, or Frostburn, etc.. or even the Complete _whatever class_ series, or the Planar Handbook). I'm not sure if they are still doing that.
Essentials is (as explained to me) a way of releasing the content more efficiently. It's in boxes. The basic game is just the basic game. The rules compendium is just rules. The Dms kit is stuff for DMs. The _Heroes of_____ books are the player content.
I really do think it's the exact same game in a format that actually functions like a game rather than a book.
Quote from: jrients;383764So your earlier retort was based upon you falling for the trollbait wording rather than discussing the fairly interesting issue of what happens next if Essentials markedly outperform the baseline 4e products. Now that you've gotten the kneejerk defensiveness out of your system, what do you think might happen if the Essentials line is a blockbuster? Or, going the other way, what if it fizzles out?
Oh I did, I fell for the wording. Buuuuuttt.. it seems like this is an easy question to answer. If one product remarkably outperforms another, of course that one will get reprinted and sold again, and that will be the standard upon which future things are sold. Successful businesses are not based on foolish dreams, flukes, or plans-so-crazy-they-just-might-work. Although gamers often fantasize that they are smarter than these guys, let's just admit- they never are.
The real question is:
If Essentials is a grand slam, what will the rest of the hobby look like?
My bet is it will look a lot like Essentials.
Quote from: Benoist;383790If it's a blockbuster, I'd imagine that the Essentials would become WotC's focus. I can hardly imagine that the WotC management would recreate the TSR scenario...
With electronic means of production, I would say the TSR scenario is virtually impossible. The only reason it broke them is because they literally went broke. Overhead for storing and printing, shipping, marketing, and so forth. I think DDI almost guarantees they can't make those exact mistakes again, although that opens the way for trailblazing brand new mistakes. :)
I could put out a set of 'core rules' tomorrow (ok, not tomorrow, when I get off my lazy ass ;) ) and put a dozen campaign sets up for sale the next day, in addition to half a dozen splats for each, 'complete' books for several classes, and so forth. It would cost me just about nothing to host all of it, and if stuff doesn't move, whoopty shit. Trickling sales of an unpopular line or title is still pure profit for me.
I see we have a lot of desperate people clinging to the idea that Essentials won't be 4th edition.
Here's the wording for the catalog entry for the "red box". (http://www.amazon.com/Dungeons-Dragons-Fantasy-Roleplaying-Game/dp/0786956291/ref=pd_sim_b_6)
"The best way to start playing the 4th Edition Dungeons & Dragons® Fantasy Roleplaying Game."
Here's the wording from the catalog for the Rules Compendium (http://www.amazon.com/Rules-Compendium-Essential-Dungeons-Dragons/dp/0786956216/ref=pd_bxgy_b_img_b). This book will be INSIDE the DM Essentials kit.
"This handy and comprehensive Dungeons & Dragons book is intended as a quick rules reference. It contains the complete core rules for the 4th Edition Dungeons & Dragons Fantasy Roleplaying Game."
Here's the wording in the catalog for Heroes of the Fallen Lands: (http://www.amazon.com/Heroes-Fallen-Lands-Essential-Supplement/dp/0786956208/ref=pd_sim_b_1)
"This essential player product for the 4th Edition Dungeons & Dragons® Fantasy Roleplaying Game presents exciting new builds for the most iconic classes: the cleric, the fighter, the ranger, the rogue, and the wizard."
Now I'm a realistic guy. I know that my usual stalkers are all going to be puzzling this shit out for way longer than September, but the writing is literally on the wall at this point. Do you people live in caves?
Quote from: Abyssal Maw;383800I see we have a lot of desperate people clinging to the idea that Essentials won't be 4th edition.
Now I'm a realistic guy. I know that my usual stalkers are all going to be puzzling this shit out for way longer than September, but the writing is literally on the wall at this point. Do you people live in caves?
Ah, delusion wrapped in over-identification. Does your ability to amuse know no bounds?
It's a reasonable argument on the surface, but it begs a few questions (above and beyond the admitted rules changes):
If it's the same game, why the different name?
If it's marketed to different people, why is it the same game?
And, of course, how does the number of people I've played with factor into any of this?
Well, I guess I'll just check back in September to see if the news has reached the bunker then.
Seriously, guys. Is the purpose of TheRpgsite to be the forum equivalent of North Korea?
Quote from: Abyssal Maw;383800I see we have a lot of desperate people clinging to the idea that Essentials won't be 4th edition.
All I'm saying is that without the text in front of us, all you have to go on is what the WotC marketing department tells you.
QuoteHere's the wording for the catalog entry for the "red box". (http://www.amazon.com/Dungeons-Dragons-Fantasy-Roleplaying-Game/dp/0786956291/ref=pd_sim_b_6)
"The best way to start playing the 4th Edition Dungeons & Dragons® Fantasy Roleplaying Game."
Here's the wording from the catalog for the Rules Compendium (http://www.amazon.com/Rules-Compendium-Essential-Dungeons-Dragons/dp/0786956216/ref=pd_bxgy_b_img_b). This book will be INSIDE the DM Essentials kit.
"This handy and comprehensive Dungeons & Dragons book is intended as a quick rules reference. It contains the complete core rules for the 4th Edition Dungeons & Dragons Fantasy Roleplaying Game."
Here's the wording in the catalog for Heroes of the Fallen Lands: (http://www.amazon.com/Heroes-Fallen-Lands-Essential-Supplement/dp/0786956208/ref=pd_sim_b_1)
"This essential player product for the 4th Edition Dungeons & Dragons® Fantasy Roleplaying Game presents exciting new builds for the most iconic classes: the cleric, the fighter, the ranger, the rogue, and the wizard."
Now I'm a realistic guy. I know that my usual stalkers are all going to be puzzling this shit out for way longer than September, but the writing is literally on the wall at this point. Do you people live in caves?
This is the part where you travel forward in time to undermine your own credibility. All it will take now is the most minor of changes or clarifications for you to end up looking like a tool.
The sad part is: AM is right, this is old content in new bottles, nothing else. How sad, a sign of an accelerated product cycle.
What is a bit disengenious: I faintly remember you, AM, being smug about all those people wanting an new Red Box. Now you tell us it´s the best thing WotC could ever do. I´m sure we can find posts aloing the lines of "2e days and box sets are a day of the past, irrelevant boy! Real relevant people like the five hundred in the sagamore ballroom want coffee table hardcovers, that´s just how people roll these days. I must know, cause I was at the Michigan ballroom at another event, too and it was full and I had to DM thrice w/o prep and it was awesome. With HARDCOVERS!".
Quote from: Settembrini;383816The sad part is: AM is right, this is old content in new bottles, nothing else. How sad, a sign of an accelerated product cycle.
Again, I think we should wait until the damn thing is out before deciding what's in the box.
Quote from: jrients;383814All I'm saying is that without the text in front of us, all you have to go on is what the WotC marketing department tells you.
This is the part where you travel forward in time to undermine your own credibility. All it will take now is the most minor of changes or clarifications for you to end up looking like a tool.
I'm quoting what is on those pages right now. Click the links and check for yourself.
That's what living in the present is all about.
Now, we could try to live in some kind of speculative "maybe-universe" that reflects our various paranoias and resentments about the RPG companies that done us wrong or whatever, but that's what it says now and I really have no reason to doubt it will be different.
But let's say I *am* wrong, and it does change. Well, That's still not my fault.
There's a difference between
maybe being wrong about the future and
totally being wrong about the present. One of those states is entirely forgivable.
Quote from: Settembrini;383816The sad part is: AM is right, this is old content in new bottles, nothing else. How sad, a sign of an accelerated product cycle.
What is a bit disengenious: I faintly remember you, AM, being smug about all those people wanting an new Red Box. Now you tell us it´s the best thing WotC could ever do. I´m sure we can find posts aloing the lines of "2e days and box sets are a day of the past, irrelevant boy! Real relevant people like the five hundred in the sagamore ballroom want coffee table hardcovers, that´s just how people roll these days. I must know, cause I was at the Michigan ballroom at another event, too and it was full and I had to DM thrice w/o prep and it was awesome. With HARDCOVERS!".
I may have been misunderstood. I would still question people wanting the basic D&D rules of the 1980s to come out to assuage their feelings or loss of identity or whatever.
Also, I've never said Essentials is the best thing they could ever do.. I *do* think it's great for new players, and it's better than the hardbacks (again, for new players). I'm not even sure I would buy it for myself. I might get it as a gift, or just to check out... but for me, it seems like I wouldn't need it.
Here's some speculation: The hardbacks are not going away. I bet they keep coming out once the Essentials line is out.
4E DMs (most of them anyhow, me certainly) rarely even need books at the table anymore. Hardbacks or not. I usually just print out my encounters and bring my sketchbook, an adventure outline, map folio, dice, and a small box of miniatures.
Quote from: Abyssal Maw;383818I'm quoting what is on those pages right now. Click the links and check for yourself.
I don't need to click the links. I don't doubt that your report of what WotC said is true.
QuoteBut let's say I *am* wrong, and it does change. Well, That's still not my fault.
No, it just makes you a douchebag.
QuoteThere's a difference between maybe being wrong about the future and totally being wrong about the present. One of those states is entirely forgivable.
What am I wrong about in the present in my opinion that perhaps we should not judge a text solely by the publisher's hype, but rather by the text itself? I seem to recall being told that repeatedly by 4e promoters when I first got turned off by WotC's hype machine prior to 4e's release. Is 'don't judge a book by its cover' suddenly out of fashion?
Quote from: Abyssal Maw;383823Also, I've never said Essentials is the best thing they could ever do.. I *do* think it's great for new players, and it's better than the hardbacks (again, for new players). I'm not even sure I would buy it for myself. I might get it as a gift, or just to check out... but for me, it seems like I wouldn't need it.
Here's some speculation: The hardbacks are not going away. I bet they keep coming out once the Essentials line is out.
I do wonder what the transition strategy from one line to another will be for "new players" though. Will Essentials eventually contain everything the Hardback line does, or will people have to jump from one product line to the other if they want to play Witchalocks?
It seems that in doing the "few levels at a time" approach in the box sets there might be a nasty "gotcha" for people who decide they want more and start thinking about the Hardcover line - as they might need to then buy just as many books as a newcomer. Still - all speculation until it comes out.
Quote from: Settembrini;383816What is a bit disengenious: I faintly remember you, AM, being smug about all those people wanting an new Red Box. Now you tell us it´s the best thing WotC could ever do. I´m sure we can find posts aloing the lines of "2e days and box sets are a day of the past, irrelevant boy! Real relevant people like the five hundred in the sagamore ballroom want coffee table hardcovers, that´s just how people roll these days. I must know, cause I was at the Michigan ballroom at another event, too and it was full and I had to DM thrice w/o prep and it was awesome. With HARDCOVERS!".
That's classic of AM's Modus Operandi. Nothing to get surprised about, IMO. :)
Quote from: Abyssal Maw;383813Seriously, guys. Is the purpose of TheRpgsite to be the forum equivalent of North Korea?
Shut up, AM. This rhetoric is getting very old and tired.
If you disagree so much with the people that take part in d&d threads, feel free to read any of the threads where this won't be a problem for you.
Quote from: jrients;383824What am I wrong about in the present in my opinion that perhaps we should not judge a text solely by the publisher's hype, but rather by the text itself? I seem to recall being told that repeatedly by 4e promoters when I first got turned off by WotC's hype machine prior to 4e's release. Is 'don't judge a book by its cover' suddenly out of fashion?
It's more that the whole "it won't be 4e!" thing is a product of Frank Trollman's rich and complex imagination. Assuming that Essentials won't be 4e is a lot like saying we have to wait until Dark Sun comes out before we can determine whether or not it's a 4e supplement.
Quote from: One Horse Town;383841Shut up, AM. This rhetoric is getting very old and tired.
If you disagree so much with the people that take part in d&d threads, feel free to read any of the threads where this won't be a problem for you.
Old and tired it may be: I just think that it's tragic that I read things here that completely fly in the face of readily available data, and that everyone seems to agree must absolutely be the case.. when a simple google search will prove them to be the
opposite of true.
Quote from: Grymbok;383828I do wonder what the transition strategy from one line to another will be for "new players" though. Will Essentials eventually contain everything the Hardback line does, or will people have to jump from one product line to the other if they want to play Witchalocks?
It seems that in doing the "few levels at a time" approach in the box sets there might be a nasty "gotcha" for people who decide they want more and start thinking about the Hardcover line - as they might need to then buy just as many books as a newcomer. Still - all speculation until it comes out.
Well, we already know that the "red box" covers levels 1-3.. but the other boxes (the DM's box, the monster box) aren't like that.
The books in this case are the compendium (which is just rules), and then "Heroes of the Forgotten Lands" ones which have a few races and classes at a time. Not a few levels.
And in any case: DDI has everything, all at once.
Quote from: Abyssal Maw;383848Old and tired it may be: I just think that it's tragic that I read things here that completely fly in the face of readily available data, and that everyone seems to agree must absolutely be the case.. when a simple google search will prove them to be the opposite of true.
I don't think the five or six posters you do the fandango with can be considered as everyone. Which of course is the problem with conflating personal conflicts over one subject with a board-wide malaise.
Quote from: Thanlis;383846It's more that the whole "it won't be 4e!" thing is a product of Frank Trollman's rich and complex imagination. Assuming that Essentials won't be 4e is a lot like saying we have to wait until Dark Sun comes out before we can determine whether or not it's a 4e supplement.
Well, my rich and complex imagination says it would be a wasted opportunity to not include changes to the system, unless we're all agreed that 4e is perfect as written. Am I the only one on the thread who thinks there could be some middle ground between "same game in a shiny new box" and "OMG! 4.5!!!11!!!"?
Indeed, I personally *hope* that Essentials includes the rules changes the devs say will be there.
I know it won't be officially called '4.5', any more than the next formulation of Coke will be called "New Coke"...but, I imagine Essentials will be as much 4e as 3.5 was 3.0--alot of similaries, some differences that, hopefully, are arguable improvements.
I'm not even sure why people would have a problem with WoTC trying to fix some mistakes.
Quote from: jrients;383824No, it just makes you a douchebag.
What an unkind thing to say. Let's say we were talking about something else: Baseball. I read somewhere that Baseball season starts on a given date and I report that. Something changes (there's a strike or something) and Baseball season starts a month later. Same assessment?
I mean, am I total douche for simply reporting what the MLB said was the date when baseball season would start? Even if things changed later? Or rather, should we simply assume the MLB is going to try and "get us"?
QuoteWhat am I wrong about in the present in my opinion that perhaps we should not judge a text solely by the publisher's hype, but rather by the text itself? I seem to recall being told that repeatedly by 4e promoters when I first got turned off by WotC's hype machine prior to 4e's release. Is 'don't judge a book by its cover' suddenly out of fashion?
You didn't get turned off by the hype machine, I remember the exact converastions at that time. It was negative here from day 1. A lot of guys here went out of their way to get offended by the advertising for a game that they had no intention of playing, ever. Which is fine, but why hang on to those feelings?
Two years ago it was "haha, dungeon furnaces, nobody is going to buy that" and now it's "Dude, where's my gaming group?"
Wake up.
What you are wrong about is that this issue is really fairly non-controversial and simple. Essentials will be 4e, it says so in black and white. We have no reason to doubt it.
Quote from: Abyssal Maw;383860What an unkind thing to say. Let's say we were talking about something else: Baseball. I read somewhere that Baseball season starts on a given date and I report that. Something changes (there's a strike or something) and Baseball season starts a month later. Same assessment?
I mean, am I total douche for simply reporting what the MLB said was the date when baseball season would start? Even if things changed later? Or rather, should we simply assume the MLB is going to try and "get us"?
No, the douchie part comes in at three places. 1) Stating without qualification "The baseball season WILL start on such-and-such a day", as if no one could possibily be expected to imagine the possibility of a player strike or a rain out that day at the venues. It's a staggering lack of imagination. 2) And then when asked to back your claim up, you cite three different links that all end up being the exact same source. That's disingenous. 3) And then should it turn out that the players strike or it rains you plan on just throwing your hands up in the air, declaring "who could've seen that coming?" as if a baseball game had never been cancelled in the entire history of forever.
QuoteYou didn't get turned off by the hype machine, I remember the exact converastions at that time. It was negative here from day 1. A lot of guys here went out of their way to get offended by the advertising for a game that they had no intention of playing, ever. Which is fine, but why hang on to those feelings?
Telling me my own state of mind? Classy. If you remembered 'the exact conversations', you could pick out the exact day I decided I wasn't going to buy 4e. That would be May 14, 2008 (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=10372).
EDIT TO ADD
QuoteTwo years ago it was "haha, dungeon furnaces, nobody is going to buy that" and now it's "Dude, where's my gaming group?"
I don't recall running down the dragon dudes. Dragon dudes are awesome. I thought cutting previously core races to make room for new ones was an uncool move, but I'd let someone play a dragon dude. And I run one game and play in another, so I don't know where the hell you got the idea that I don't have a game group.
Quote from: Abyssal Maw;383848Old and tired it may be: I just think that it's tragic that I read things here that completely fly in the face of readily available data, and that everyone seems to agree must absolutely be the case.. when a simple google search will prove them to be the opposite of true.
Regardless of any speculation about what WotC's strategy is (at least, regarding the 4.0/4.5 bit), the problem here is that you're quoting
salesmen, calling trump, and expecting it to end the discussion of what the future will bring. You could just as easily assert that the new 'red box'
IS the best way to start playing D&D, or that the new builds are "exciting" in an undisputed way. After all, it says so in black and white. It's right there in Google.
Bullshit.
I hope they release a good product. I want to enjoy their game.
As it stands right now, I don't care which version of 4e outsells the other, and I don't care whether they choose to acknowledge any significant revisions by changing the number, but I especially don't care what WotC's pre-release promo copy tells me about my future experience of the game.
Quote from: jrients;383856Well, my rich and complex imagination says it would be a wasted opportunity to not include changes to the system, unless we're all agreed that 4e is perfect as written. Am I the only one on the thread who thinks there could be some middle ground between "same game in a shiny new box" and "OMG! 4.5!!!11!!!"?
Oh no, I agree. I think that's going to go along these lines. People that have been saying "this is the same 4e!" will say that these are "just errata", and that "people are blowing things out of proportions", while others will look at the resulting system and think this is fairly close, yet different in some respect.
Quote from: Benoist;383886Oh no, I agree. I think that's going to go along these lines. People that have been saying "this is the same 4e!" will say that these are "just errata", and that "people are blowing things out of proportions", while others will look at the resulting system and think this is fairly close, yet different in some respect.
Yeah. Fixing problems/mistakes is an ongoing process for WotC; they are not shy about errata. Let me put it this way: if WotC thinks there's a problem with any aspect of the rules, they're not going to wait for Essentials to fix it. They'll put it in the bi-monthly updates.
Quote from: Doom;383858Indeed, I personally *hope* that Essentials includes the rules changes the devs say will be there.
I know it won't be officially called '4.5', any more than the next formulation of Coke will be called "New Coke"...but, I imagine Essentials will be as much 4e as 3.5 was 3.0--alot of similaries, some differences that, hopefully, are arguable improvements.
I'm not even sure why people would have a problem with WoTC trying to fix some mistakes.
Are you hoping for feat tax fix, that sort of thing?
That's actually towards the bottom of my list of hopeful patches.
Chargen that allows for more than one or two races that realistically work for each class build, a fix for healing, a fix for monster damage, a better balance system for encounters, a fix for minions, a fix for solos, a fix for elites, a fix for excessive condition stacking, a fix for busted powers, a fix for multiclassing.
That's just off the top of my head of things I'd love to see patched. I'd have to think for a few minutes to come up with anything remotely exhaustive.
If all they fix was the marginal feat tax thing, it'd still be 4e. But if they do some of the stuff they've hinted at, then, yeah, that would justify the entirely new brand name.
4E can be easily fixed because it's crazily modular. I just have no faith in the developers still aboard doing so.
Quote from: jrients;383873Telling me my own state of mind? Classy. If you remembered 'the exact conversations', you could pick out the exact day I decided I wasn't going to buy 4e. That would be May 14, 2008 (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=10372).
I don't recall running down the dragon dudes. Dragon dudes are awesome. I thought cutting previously core races to make room for new ones was an uncool move, but I'd let someone play a dragon dude. And I run one game and play in another, so I don't know where the hell you got the idea that I don't have a game group.
That was more of a general comment. Read closely, I wasn't talking about you.
But ok, here's your wake up call. You decided that in May 2008 you were not interested in D&D4e.
It's a little over
two years later.
(following me so far?)
You are still talking about it.
Oh and Essentials is 4th Edition.
Quote from: Abyssal Maw;384020That was more of a general comment. Read closely, I wasn't talking about you.
I knew that, but I was curious whether you were going to own up to your tactic of quoting me, Jeff Rients, appearing to respond to me, Jeff Rients, but actually talking about some nebulous entity that has nothing to do with me. You're not engaging in honest debate here, Mr. Maw.
QuoteBut ok, here's your wake up call. You decided that in May 2008 you were not interested in D&D4e.
No. That's not what I wrote. I said I decided not to buy it. I played it twice after it came out. I might play it again. I have no interest in running it. You're still talking to/about someone besides the person on the other end of this conversation.
QuoteIt's a little over two years later.
(following me so far?)
You are still talking about it.
Of course I'm still talking about it! Why the hell wouldn't I? Are you disputing that D&D is the most important game in the hobby? Are you offended that I refuse to stay in my old school ghetto and actually want to talk about the game you adore? Are only people with fully positive opinions allowed to weigh in?
QuoteOh and Essentials is 4th Edition.
Essentials isn't anything yet, you boob! Is there even a single Essentials title at the printers right now? All Essentials *is* right now is a brand name.
In principle, a product line can be abruptly canceled overnight without any notice or explanation.
As an analogy, there are television shows which have been abruptly canceled after one or two episodes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_television_series_canceled_after_one_episode
For that matter, there's even been television shows which were abruptly canceled and removed from a TV network's schedule before one episode was ever aired.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_television_series_cancelled_before_airing_an_episode
Quote from: jrients;384036Essentials isn't anything yet, you boob! Is there even a single Essentials title at the printers right now? All Essentials *is* right now is a brand name.
In principle, the entire product line can be abruptly canceled before ever seeing the printer.
Quote from: jrients;384036Of course I'm still talking about it! Why the hell wouldn't I? Are you disputing that D&D is the most important game in the hobby?
The current version of D&D is always, always, always the most important game in the hobby. At times, I feel like I'm the only one here who is able to say it without a sour face. And just by saying it, I know I have probably queued up 28 follow-on arguments about the definition of "current version", the definition of D&D, the definition of "important" and the definition of hobby. Because that's a hard truth for some people to deal with.
QuoteAre you offended that I refuse to stay in my old school ghetto and actually want to talk about the game you adore? Are only people with fully positive opinions allowed to weigh in.
I don't consider the legacy editions to be a ghetto. I'm certainly not offended. But I would hope for at least an
informed opinion.
Remember the time where you wrote a whole blog post sneering at the one player who was upset about having to face what he considered an "unfair" encounter. It was the "rats" encounter from an LFR adventure. The details were that the players track a wereat (who also happens to be an opera singer) to his sewer-lair, and after some dialog, the wererat could just keep summoning giant rats until he was killed. In this case, the player was complaining about unfairness, because he had ignored the wererat and kept attacking the summoned rats until his character eventually got overwhelmed and killed.
You somehow tied this back to 4E and some kind of mollycoddling accusation. This, despite the fact that 1) the system in this case was anything but kind to the clueless player, and 2) the player himself was a Living Greyhawk dude. He was calling for fairness because he was used to 3.5's CRs. It never occurred to this player that he should have tried to out think the encounter. But YOU came to the conclusion that this was emblematic of the 4e system and players.
To me, that says you lack a certain perspective.
QuoteEssentials isn't anything yet, you boob! Is there even a single Essentials title at the printers right now? All Essentials *is* right now is a brand name.
Well, I don't know how long it takes to print something, but are you now convinced that Essentials (which by the way, will be 4th edition, I feel I should point this out again in case you forget) won't even be printed? When it does come out, in juuust a couple of months, won't you feel silly?
Quote from: Abyssal Maw;384043Well, I don't know how long it takes to print something, but are you now convinced that Essentials (which by the way, will be 4th edition, I feel I should point this out again in case you forget) won't even be printed? When it does come out, in juuust a couple of months, won't you feel silly?
No, I expect Essentials to come out. But I've expected quite a few products to come out as promised by game companies that never materialized. I just feel that only someone playing fast and loose with the truth would make unqualified statements about what a game "is" when the damn thing doesn't exist yet.
As for that one snarky blog post, I know exactly the one you are referencing. I flew off the handle and regret making that post. I was wrong. And I apologize to everyone I offended.
I should note that you remember that as "the time" I made a fool of myself and not the way I operate all the time. I'm happy about the fact that you recognize me as an individual person and not just part of some mass of people who all hate dungeon furnaces, but that only makes your earlier tactic seem dirtier.
Quote from: jrients;384047I just feel that only someone playing fast and loose with the truth would make unqualified statements about what a game "is" when the damn thing doesn't exist yet.
How much is this different than the sort of punditry on 24 hour news stations? (Other than being a form of entertainment).
Everybody thinks they're an expert. :)
Quote from: jrients;384047No, I expect Essentials to come out. But I've expected quite a few products to come out as promised by game companies that never materialized. I just feel that only someone playing fast and loose with the truth would make unqualified statements about what a game "is" when the damn thing doesn't exist yet.
As for that one snarky blog post, I know exactly the one you are referencing. I flew off the handle and regret making that post. I was wrong. And I apologize to everyone I offended.
I should note that you remember that as "the time" I made a fool of myself and not the way I operate all the time. I'm happy about the fact that you recognize me as an individual person and not just part of some mass of people who all hate dungeon furnaces, but that only makes your earlier tactic seem dirtier.
Well, sorry about that. Think of the bright side, I never called you a douchebag.
The thing is, Jeff, we didn't end up at this point in the rhetoric by random chance. In reality, roleplaying games really aren't political parties. But here, they are. I think it's just been very unfair here for the last two years, and for no good reason whatsoever. (Really I think it just drives the aggravation level up for the haters worse than it does for anyone else). But rather than complain about that, I have been advised to respond in kind. So uhh.. you think I start these fights? Throughout all of this, I keep wanting to stress the single point: These are real people we are talking about. This is what is happening now.
Here is the hated enemy. (http://www.youtube.com/user/DNDWizards#p/u/26/dviVx60qSrA)
Quote from: Abyssal Maw;384051Well, sorry about that. Think of the bright side, I never called you a douchebag.
You should try it sometime. I find it much more satisfying than trying to score points by making shit up. But if I actually hurt your feelings with that, I apologize. I had thought that everyone hung out around here instead of RPGnet precisely so we could discard the sleazy indirect tactics in favor of immature name-calling.
QuoteThe thing is, Jeff, we didn't end up at this point in the rhetoric by random chance. In reality, roleplaying games really aren't political parties. But here, they are.
I dunno, man. I could've sworn we were just agreeing with each other on another thread about a dude's problem being DM-related rather than edition-related.
QuoteI think it's just been very unfair here for the last two years, and for no good reason whatsoever. (Really I think it just drives the aggravation level up for the haters worse than it does for anyone else). But rather than complain about that, I have been advised to respond in kind. So uhh.. you think I start these fights?
I acknowledge that you're in a stiff spot given the local climate. But just as you can say "You don't like the new edition, why don't you drop it?" I could easily respond "You don't like the locally popular edition, why don't you drop it or go elsewhere?" Personally, I think that this is a generalist RPG board and everyone should have their say.
QuoteHere is the hated enemy. (http://www.youtube.com/user/DNDWizards#p/u/26/dviVx60qSrA)
I'll have to check out that clip when I get home. ;)
Wow, I see this turned into a wholesome and highly productive discussion.
Or not.
Quote from: Mistwell;384137Wow, I see this turned into a wholesome and highly productive discussion.
The definition of which seems to be 'unalloyed praise for 4e'.
Or perhaps discussion of 4E that doesn't involve the words "douchebag" or "cunt"?
Quote from: Fifth Element;384151Or perhaps discussion of 4E that doesn't involve the words "douchebag" or "cunt"?
Or AM going for his usual routines. Or similar passive-aggressive bullshit from other posters. Nod. I agree.
Quote from: Benoist;384152Or AM going for his usual routines.
That often does involve the words "douchebag" and "cunt"!
Quote from: Fifth Element;384154That often does involve the words "douchebag" and "cunt"!
Agreed. On the other hand, speaking for myself, I don't take criticism of AD&D (or other Vintage Games) as a personal affront. Maybe others do, and are better at hiding it, but I don't think so. I have been more than happy to discuss problems with older games; identify and correct when it comes up, or just co-miserate.
But as far as I can tell, those of us who enjoy older versions of games don't have a huge public meltdown every time someone complains. We don't tell them they are 'irrelevant', we don't make every attempt to paint them as 'haters' or 'griefers' or what the hell ever in an attempt to undermine their argument. So let's not pretend there is an equivalence there that doesn't actually exist. Near as I can tell, most discussions of older versions are relatively calm and peaceable. There are exceptions, of course. But as soon as even the smallest criticism of 4e is voiced, it is code red for the Zealots to start lobbing the heavy artillery. There are a few reasonable voices in there, not everyone is a Zealot. But the loudest complaints about the atmosphere around 4e discussions usually come from those who are first and most active in fouling it.
Quote from: StormBringer;384157Near as I can tell, most discussions of older versions are relatively calm and peaceable. There are exceptions, of course. But as soon as even the smallest criticism of 4e is voiced, it is code red for the Zealots to start lobbing the heavy artillery. There are a few reasonable voices in there, not everyone is a Zealot. But the loudest complaints about the atmosphere around 4e discussions usually come from those who are first and most active in fouling it.
Um.
Quote...neither of which event changes a single iota the fact that D&D is fucked up beyond all fixing.
Third post in the thread. I really, really wish we could get past the pretense that 4e fans are wholly to blame for the tenor of these discussions. Fourth post was more of the same, then things got kind of calm again, then Trollman came by and called Mearls a fraud. It's been up and down from there.
But let's share some fucking blame, guys. "Fucked up beyond all fixing" is not the smallest criticism.
I don't think D&D is beyond fixing...the old game is what it is, and I don't even know if it matters if AD&D, BECMI, or even 3.5 is fixable or not.
On the other hand [strike]4.5[/strike] Essentials has at least a chance of fixing the varied issues of 4e that many folks perceive, and I think it's fair to be hopeful, just as I think it's fair to doubt what a sales brochure says.
Quote from: Thanlis;384162Third post in the thread. I really, really wish we could get past the pretense that 4e fans are wholly to blame for the tenor of these discussions.
I completely agree.
Can we get past the pretense that grognards are losers who are not gaming and everything's their fault because they just can't fucking let go? If we agree on these two things, maybe we can get past this whole constant clusterfuck.
Quote from: Abyssal Maw;384051Here is the hated enemy. (http://www.youtube.com/user/DNDWizards#p/u/26/dviVx60qSrA)
Three basic reactions to this video:
1) The format (short sessions, drop in with no commitment) is pretty much how I run Labyrinth Lord at the game shop EXCEPT
2) Holy fuck! Two hours to get through one encounter! I ran into that during the back quarter of my 3.5 campaign and everyone thought it was a drag.
3) Who the hell told you I have anything against 4e players? Is it that hard for you to disentangle criticism of a game system or company from a comment on its player base? Or is any negative comment against the system or the company that makes it automatically an assault against the players? (Never mind the fact that my entire criticism in this thread has been nothing more than asking you to stop talking out your ass.) Or is this another example of you pretending to be talking to me but actually talking to/about someone else? If the latter, please stop using me as your goddamn rhetorical punching bag and actually respond to me.
Quote from: Thanlis;384162Third post in the thread. I really, really wish we could get past the pretense that 4e fans are wholly to blame for the tenor of these discussions. Fourth post was more of the same, then things got kind of calm again, then Trollman came by and called Mearls a fraud. It's been up and down from there.
But let's share some fucking blame, guys. "Fucked up beyond all fixing" is not the smallest criticism.
Which is why I qualified my comments. No point of view is blameless, and 'fucked up being all fixing' can be routinely dismissed. Annoying? Sure. Worthy of engagement? Of course not.
Quote from: jrients;3841692) Holy fuck! Two hours to get through one encounter! I ran into that during the back quarter of my 3.5 campaign and everyone thought it was a drag.
Not much to add except:
That's two hours to
play (not "get through", people really are doing this for enjoyment)
And the combat is only part of the encounter. There's usually some moving through the dungeon and exploration, and clue gathering.. Like the one adventure right now, the PCs were supposed to be searching for Halaster's lost apprentice's name and piecing together some clues about what happened to her.
And all that said, the encounter rarely takes up all the time they block off. In fact, it's usually half.
Quote from: Thanlis;384162I really, really wish we could get past the pretense that 4e fans are wholly to blame for the tenor of these discussions.
Wholly? It's not the 4e fans who start thread after thread about the game, based on flimsy and inflammatory pretenses, then start in with foul language, accusations, and personal attacks as soon as someone wanders in to say something positive.
Seanchai
Quote from: Abyssal Maw;384323Not much to add except:
Is that secret Abyssal Maw code for 'I'm not going to address point 3 because we all know I was once again lumping all 4e detractors into a single mass rather than responding to the guy I'm actually talking to.'?
QuoteThat's two hours to play (not "get through", people really are doing this for enjoyment)
I have no reason to doubt that those folks are enjoying their game. Nor did I mean to suggest otherwise. For my own personal preferences (pretending to no objective standard) that is a woefully inadequate encounter rate.
Quote from: jrients;384345lumping all 4e detractors into a single mass rather than responding to the guy I'm actually talking to.'?
At one point I tried doing otherwise. But that's sort of how we got to this point. For example I might start out talking to you, and I'd end up fending off some other jackass and his 4 friends that he'd emailed to come over and help . It's less personal this way, trust me.
QuoteI have no reason to doubt that those folks are enjoying their game. Nor did I mean to suggest otherwise. For my own personal preferences (pretending to no objective standard) that is a woefully inadequate encounter rate.
Is the goal quantity or quality? If it's fun the whole time, does it matter?
I have no doubt that battles in 4e can take longer than in certain systems (much shorter than D&D3 though, if you managed that game), but they are well-organized, interesting, and descriptive. Remember, often enough these aren't people with 30 years of gaming history, often enough they are just shoppers looking to
play a game. Also the encounter is not necessarily a single dungeon room, but rather an encounter area (which be a couple of rooms with a lot of detailed areas).
I usually do 2 or 3 battles in a 3.5 hour game session. But the usual thing we are ignoring is: it's not all combat. You don't just take the duration, divide by the number of battles and say "You spent TWO HOURS just trying to resolve some combat?!!"
This is also why- if we were playing (whatever game) for 5 or 6 hours, but only reported one battle, it doesn't follow that the battle took 5 or 6 hours.
I have nothing against people who enjoy 4e. Drohem plays 4e. I have nothing against him. Peregrin plays 4e. I have nothing against him. Just two examples right off the bat.
Heck, I would even play 4e with these guys and not bitch about the game in the process.
I, however, have everything against some people's tactics when discussing anything 4e. Heck, I criticize the game, it contains all sorts of really bad ideas and stuff -imo- but in the end, when threads like these are going down the drain, it's most definitely not about 4e. It's about the tactics used to discuss it.
Like I said elsewhere, people are in fact far less polarized and stuck in their ways than some would love everyone to believe.
Quote from: Benoist;384351I, however, have everything against some people's tactics when discussing anything 4e. Heck, I criticize the game, it contains all sorts of really bad ideas and stuff -imo- but in the end, when threads like these are going down the drain, it's most definitely not about 4e. It's about the tactics used to discuss it.
Well, you're a prime offender, if you hadn't realized.
Quote from: Abyssal Maw;384352Well, you're a prime offender, if you hadn't realized.
Oh. I'm sorry? Are you answering my posts, now?
You actually are the main offender I had in mind when I wrote this (obviously -you're not a moron). I'm glad you're feeling so self-important that everything 4e has to be about you, and vice versa, but what pushes my buttons isn't the game itself, it's your attitude. You can be a great guy when you're not acting like a paranoid, hypocritical, back-stabbing bitch, but you've made the conscious choice to keep playing conversations that way. Like I said weeks ago: fine by me.
You keep up with the back-handed comments, the constant strawmen, the characterizations of people who happen to disagree with you? We'll keep butting heads against each other occasionally. The ball's in your park. It's always been.
Quote from: Abyssal Maw;384350At one point I tried doing otherwise. But that's sort of how we got to this point. For example I might start out talking to you, and I'd end up fending off some other jackass and his 4 friends that he'd emailed to come over and help . It's less personal this way, trust me.
It would be less personal to me if you stopped quoting me when you wanted to take a swing at somebody else.
QuoteIs the goal quantity or quality? If it's fun the whole time, does it matter?
Quantity has a quality all its own, so yes. It matters to me. I prefer roleplaying sessions that end with a long list of notable achievements, places visited, people met and battles fought. To spend 60 minutes on one fight just doesn't thrill me.
QuoteAlso the encounter is not necessarily a single dungeon room, but rather an encounter area (which be a couple of rooms with a lot of detailed areas).
I had forgotten that the definition of an encounter had changed a bit. It still seems smaller and more minutae-focused than I care for. Though now it occurrs to me to wonder whether the D&D Encounter format seems to encourage the leveling of the playing field between Daily and Encounter powers. You're not going to have any other encounters that night, so why wouldn't you use your daily power?
Quote from: Benoist;384351I have nothing against people who enjoy 4e. Drohem plays 4e. I have nothing against him. Peregrin plays 4e. I have nothing against him. Just two examples right off the bat.
I've been playing D&D Encounters over the last two months. (It uses the 4E D&D ruleset).
Quote from: ggroy;384359I've been playing D&D Encounters over the last two months.
And I sure have nothing against you. Nod.
WHile I have great respect for AM, I stand by my notion that having fun with 4e is a sign of bad taste in general and possibly of being a bad person in general.
Main reason: 4e is full of irrelevant decisions or deciosn taken away from you. You might not care for those decisions or their meaningfulness, but then I invoke the first notion: bad taste & wrong preferences.
This is mellowed by the fact, that it takes some time to see through the balance-bullshit's consequences. Not all people interact or think about these consequences too hard. So, if you are not in bad taste or don´t have wrong preferences, liking 4e is at the very least a sign of shallow gaming.
Something I abhor, but a different perspective might be taken. Shallow tactical combat it remains, bad or good, I made up my mind.
Quote from: Settembrini;384361WHile I have great respect for AM, I stand by my notion that having fun with 4e is a sign of bad taste in general and possibly of being a bad person in general.
In general, you have bad taste and are a bad person for making this completely stupid statement.
Quote from: Settembrini;384361WHile I have great respect for AM, I stand by my notion that having fun with 4e is a sign of bad taste in general and possibly of being a bad person in general.
Yes, that's another good example.
Quote from: Settembrini;384361WHile I have great respect for AM, I stand by my notion that having fun with 4e is a sign of bad taste in general and possibly of being a bad person in general.
:rolleyes:
Yeah, I think you went too far this time. Judging people's taste in gaming is one thing but using that to extrapolate that you can condemn their taste in general? Dubious. And then claiming you can generalize from that what kind of person they are? Preposterous. You might as well be saying that everyone who likes rap/country/jazz/whatever music is a bad person or that anyone that wears white after Labor Day is a horrible human being.
Quote from: jrients;384369Yeah, I think you went too far this time. Judging people's taste in gaming is one thing but using that to extrapolate that you can condemn their taste in general?
Or their character for that matter. Nod. That's too far.
It would be a pretty boring world if everyone shared the same palette.
Quote from: StormBringer;384144The definition of which seems to be 'unalloyed praise for 4e'.
No. I mean, you can try and spin it, but my comment has nothing to do with editions and everything to do with people being assholes to each other. You included.
People should be capable of articulating what they like and dislike about games without being incredible dickheads to each other. Alas, that did not occur here.
Quote from: StormBringer;384157Agreed. On the other hand, speaking for myself, I don't take criticism of AD&D (or other Vintage Games) as a personal affront. Maybe others do, and are better at hiding it, but I don't think so. I have been more than happy to discuss problems with older games; identify and correct when it comes up, or just co-miserate.
But as far as I can tell, those of us who enjoy older versions of games don't have a huge public meltdown every time someone complains. We don't tell them they are 'irrelevant', we don't make every attempt to paint them as 'haters' or 'griefers' or what the hell ever in an attempt to undermine their argument. So let's not pretend there is an equivalence there that doesn't actually exist. Near as I can tell, most discussions of older versions are relatively calm and peaceable. There are exceptions, of course. But as soon as even the smallest criticism of 4e is voiced, it is code red for the Zealots to start lobbing the heavy artillery. There are a few reasonable voices in there, not everyone is a Zealot. But the loudest complaints about the atmosphere around 4e discussions usually come from those who are first and most active in fouling it.
You should consider for a moment that your perspective is different from other people, and what you see as overreaction and zealotry, others may not. You need to demonstrate self-reflection, before accusing others.
Regardless, you can be less of a dick about it, and so could they. The end result of the type of argumentation displayed in this thread is no help to anyone, in any way whatsoever. You could have been arguing about cheese for all any non-participant would have cared. The debate lost an educational or persuasive benefit it might have had, because everyone was being such dicks to each other.
Quote from: Settembrini;384361I stand by my notion that having fun with 4e is a sign of bad taste in general and possibly of being a bad person in general.
I find your comment, from a psychological perspective, fascinating. Could you list other genre-related things that are signs to you of someone possibly being a bad person in general?
Also, any relation to Larry Settembrini who does the conventions? Or are you that German Blogger (http://hofrat.blogspot.com/)?
Quote from: Mistwell;384419Also, any relation to Larry Settembrini who does the conventions? Or are you that German Blogger (http://hofrat.blogspot.com/)?
The latter. "The Prussian Gamer". It's him.
Quote from: Benoist;384426The latter. "The Prussian Gamer". It's him.
Ah, OK.
In theory, it could just be a German thing :)
I note he also went off on Erik Mona and hat for Paizo.
Quote from: Mistwell;384417You should consider for a moment that your perspective is different from other people, and what you see as overreaction and zealotry, others may not. You need to demonstrate self-reflection, before accusing others.
Regardless, you can be less of a dick about it, and so could they. The end result of the type of argumentation displayed in this thread is no help to anyone, in any way whatsoever. You could have been arguing about cheese for all any non-participant would have cared. The debate lost an educational or persuasive benefit it might have had, because everyone was being such dicks to each other.
Don't pretend to be the level-headed one all of a sudden. You are among the least reasonable when it comes to any kind of discussion about 4e.
Your attempt to lecture is pathetic.
EDIT: There have been any number of other topics discussed around here that are far more toxic, and not a word about them. You only jump in when it is about 4e. I have never actually seen a post of yours in regards to that topic as anything resembling helpful, so your complaint is simply hypocritical. If the atmosphere around here is a bit too tense for you, there are other places on the web that will protect your emotional safety.
Cowards. Taste and ethics/morals are interellated. Either you face that reality or keep lying to yourselves. Any aesthetical preference has it´s roots in ethics/morality.
And if you would have cared to read the rest of my post, you would´nt have needed to get all PC right there. Shallowness is the verdict. You might want to actually consider that. It´s also the silver bullett against the retarded "fun" argument.
Since when did Mark Rein*Hagen post here?
It is FACT that aesthetics and morality are inseperable. We might discuss the specifics of what morality/ethics stand behind 4e, we might disagree on the particulars. But the link remains.
From where I stand, 4e is a degeneration, very much like obesity scooters. 4e is by all practical means the obesity scooter of RPG-dom.
Do I like to eat? YES! Do I have a car? YES!
Are obesity scooters acceptable? Hell, NO!
See, that´s the trouble with you guys, you don´t see the difference with regular people eating and driving and some degenerated bloatpeople in their Jabba-Scooters. Your PC-weakens your moral capacity to judge between too much and acceptable-
Quote from: Peregrin;384531Since when did Mark Rein*Hagen post here?
It's a lot easier to read Sett's posts if you use this:
(http://www.citadelofchaos.net/StormBringer/pics/dieter.jpg)
And follow them up with "Touch my monkey!!"
But what makes other editions any better? Where do you draw the line in terms of the evolution of the mechanics?
If you can't give solid logic behind your reasoning, it's a meaningless subjective stance. All I'm hearing is "4e is bad and the people who play it are lazy and it's not real fun." That doesn't tell me shit if you want me to believe the rest of your rhetoric.
I have no qualms with calling things shit. I think the last two Halo games were shit. I think American supers comics are shit. Some people think LOST was shit. But the truth of the matter is that our opinions on whether or not something (or the people who consume it) is/are shallow or shitty means nothing. What speaks to someone else may not speak to you, and vice versa. Is someone really better or worse for liking Fawlty Towers instead of Monty Python? What about the people who like both?
I won't deny the fact that 4e doesn't do what you want it to, and provides a shallow experience for what you're trying to get out of it, but not everyone is trying to squeeze apple juice out of an orange. It doesn't provide me with everything I want out of a game, and that's why it's not the only game I own.
Quote from: Peregrin;384536But what makes other editions any better? Where do you draw the line in terms of the evolution of the mechanics?
If you can't give solid logic behind your reasoning, it's a meaningless subjective stance. All I'm hearing is "4e is bad and the people who play it are lazy--
Your narrative is boring me!
NOW IS THE TIME ON SPROCKETS VEN VE DANCE!!
Ah, ok. Had to Google that. I was only 3 or 4 when those aired.
Stormbringer: It´s also a sign of degeneration when someone using a word like "aesthetics" is put into an effeminate corner without further consideration. Because, I´m shouting at you guys like Gunnery Seargeant Hartman. Only you aren´t able to parse this.
@Peregrin: Are you fucking kidding me? I´ve delineated the CRITICISM more times than you have posted on this site. As for the Obesity Scooter argument, I´ll just give you some hints:
- item wish list
- full balancing
- fun, fun, fun
- save or die
- fake sumo
- designers saying they cheat on encounters if they go against the players
ad nauseam
Quote from: StormBringer;384537Your narrative is boring me!
NOW IS THE TIME ON SPROCKETS VEN VE DANCE!!
Obviously, you are part of your country that produced Sara Palin and the obesity scooter culture. You sad fuck.
Right, 4e doesn't line up with your priorities for play or design.
I don't see how that means that the people who play it aren't having real fun or have bad taste in general. AFAIK, it's possible for someone to like Citizen Kane and the Transformers movies.
Like I've said before, 4e doesn't do everything I want, and I do find it lacking in some areas, but that doesn't mean I'm going to use the game itself as a tool to judge other gamers.
Quote from: Abyssal Maw;384051Throughout all of this, I keep wanting to stress the single point: These are real people we are talking about. This is what is happening now.
Here is the hated enemy. (http://www.youtube.com/user/DNDWizards#p/u/26/dviVx60qSrA)
Providing opportunities to play D&D for
people without friends to game with is always a good idea. But personally, I'd try my best to get round that conundrum by resorting to a context which
doesn't tolerate antisocial behaviour like listening to i-tunes while playing. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dviVx60qSrA#t=0m40s) I'm sure the policy of "D&D Encounters" is to make room for as many people as possible, but my own policy is to be a tad more selective when it comes to choosing the people to game with; selecting your co-players simply translates all too directly into the quality of play to be taken so lightly.
That said, I understand that having a (good) gaming group of one's own is a luxury, and that the lack thereof makes people more happy to compromise. I'm also not saying that all instances of playing in a Wednesnight program mean exposure to antisocial jerks; it's just a randomized factor that one would have to cope with on occasion.
See? Fucking hilarious!
Quote from: Settembrini;384540(http://www.citadelofchaos.net/StormBringer/pics/dieter.jpg)
Obviously, you are part of your country that produced Sara Palin and the obesity scooter culture.
Touch him! Love him! Liebe mein affe!
I have no idea if you are doing some performance art piece as an intentional parody to fuck with everyone, or if you are serious and it just ends up being absurd parody anyway, but keep it up. Comedy gold!
Quote from: Windjammer;384543Providing opportunities to play D&D for people without friends to game with is always a good idea. But personally, I'd try my best to get round that conundrum by resorting to a context which doesn't tolerate antisocial behaviour like listening to i-tunes while playing. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dviVx60qSrA#t=0m40s) I'm sure the policy of "D&D Encounters" is to make room for as many people as possible, but my own policy is to be selective when it comes to choosing the people to game with; it simply translates all too directly into the quality of play. That said, I understand that having a (good) gaming group of one's own is a luxury, and that the lack thereof makes people more happy to compromise.
Interesting. A form of 'group isolation'? They are all in one location, all performing the same activity, but none of them are in the same place?
I wonder if that is one of the unintended consequences of DDI and other electronic support. Perhaps it is a consequence of the underlying design from the start.
There is one thing that let´s me partially agree with AM: What 4e is, there is no doubt about it an RPG!
And when you first encounter the method of reolplaying, that 4e still employs, it is an eye opener and a very special experience. 4e delivers that experience top people who never have played before.
Kudos to everyone introducing new people into RPGs in general.
But I think the debate is more productive if we keep those two strands of the arguemnt seperate.
People in the video: Thin people who where allowed to ride an obesity scooter at the malls parking lot for the first time in their life. Fun for about twenty minutes.
Quote from: StormBringer;384545Interesting. A form of 'group isolation'? They are all in one location, all performing the same activity, but none of them are in the same place?
I wonder if that is one of the unintended consequences of DDI and other electronic support. Perhaps it is a consequence of the underlying design from the start.
You're definitely onto something in your first paragraph, but associating it with DDI (in your second paragraph) seems to be a complete
non sequitur to me - perhaps you could spell it out a bit more? DDI is really more a tool for players to customize and level up their PCs inbetween sessions, not during sessions.
Personally, I think the following of people listening to itunes while playing D&D. I recall reading a rather detailed report of someone running one of the 2009 Gameday adventures (released for one of the Core 2's, I think it was for MM 2, Journey through the Silver Caves). The gist of it was, 'Geez, have I been out of the hobby so long? Am I so out of touch with youth culture today?'. Ah, okay, so we're talking about someone in his mid-30s (if not 1-2 decades later). The guy in question ran the demo module in a store for guys and girls in their late teens. He was impressed (and distraught!) by their needless effort to 'multi-task' - doing stuff on their iphones, texting friends, all of this happening right there at the game table - but having difficulty doing some of the math in the game, and keeping their attention even when it was their turn.
Assuming the report is honest (and my recall isn't totally warped - wish I could remember where I read it - and then link it)... that's quite a window into the sort of situation 4E was designed to handle well.
See, I think 4E's overarching design goal was to be a game people can easily get into while trying it out at stores or conventions. I also think that design goal was exceedingly well met. It's something that gets explicitly praised in the video AM linked - the "get in, get out, whenver" format of the whole thing.
Now there are a TON of RPGs out there which really break down under such constraints (for instance, I don't think you can run a horror/CoC type of game with people in a well lit shop + partially pre-occupied with their e-gadgets). It's certainly a merit of 4E to be so strongly designed to work under those constraints. The only thing where I get personally ... midly amused... is when people like AM tell me that THOSE PEOPLE are the new yard stick, the default 4E player crowd. I'd like to think that 4E caters to home groups just as much, but I hate to agree that a lot of 4E design tenets are not very well suited to be ported over to home play.
Magic parcels and rust monsters recycling destroyed equipment out of their arse ... these are things which strike me as prime examples of
single-session design artificialities; as artificialities which lose their rationale the moment they hit the game table of an ongoing campaign among friends.
Quote from: Settembrini;384528Cowards. Taste and ethics/morals are interellated. Either you face that reality or keep lying to yourselves. Any aesthetical preference has it´s roots in ethics/morality.
Interrelated maybe, but not identical. Different people come to the table with different motivations and I think your argument is predicated on the idea that games have to be hard to be fun.
QuoteAnd if you would have cared to read the rest of my post, you would´nt have needed to get all PC right there. Shallowness is the verdict. You might want to actually consider that. It´s also the silver bullett against the retarded "fun" argument.
I'll go back and re-read it.
Quote from: Benoist;384351I have nothing against people who enjoy 4e.
And yet you attack and belittle them.
Seanchai
Quote from: Windjammer;384556You're definitely onto something in your first paragraph, but associating it with DDI (in your second paragraph) seems to be a complete non sequitur to me - perhaps you could spell it out a bit more? DDI is really more a tool for players to customize and level up their PCs inbetween sessions, not during sessions.
No, that is it exactly. Gone are the days of sitting around working out characters around the table, leveling up, talking about what spell or skill would be best, sharing books and general kibitzing. Now, you show up with your character from DDI, do your little dance, record XP, then go home to work out leveling up. Who needs to interact with the people at the table when you will probably get 'better' advice from the WotC message boards, and you can twiddle a couple of things in DDI and print up a fresh, new character sheet?
Quote from: StormBringer;384535It's a lot easier to read Sett's posts if you use this:
(http://www.citadelofchaos.net/StormBringer/pics/dieter.jpg)
And follow them up with "Touch my monkey!!"
Quote from: StormBringer;384537Your narrative is boring me!
NOW IS THE TIME ON SPROCKETS VEN VE DANCE!!
Thanks for that! :)
I was going to respond to Sett's stupidity, but why? It's nonsense on par with Logos7's duck-fucking quaking.
Quote from: Drohem;384601Thanks for that! :)
I was going to respond to Sett's stupidity, but why? It's nonsense on par with Logos7's duck-fucking quaking.
Exactly. :)
The entirety of the debate boils down to former gamers who no longer matter and their deep resentment of current gamers who do.
Everything else (personnel changes, skill challenges, release schedule, essentials, treasure parcels, artwork, dragonborn, RPGA, hit points, PDFs, house rules, .. just keep adding, because the list will grow as long as my arm) is an excuse to demonstrate the loathing and the gnashing.
Proof: This thread and all others like it.
Enjoy the next decade.
Quote from: Abyssal Maw;384616The entirety of the debate boils down to former gamers who no longer matter and their deep resentment of current gamers who do.
Everything else (personnel changes, skill challenges, release schedule, essentials, treasure parcels, artwork, dragonborn, RPGA, hit points, PDFs, house rules, .. just keep adding, because the list will grow as long as my arm) is an excuse to demonstrate the loathing and the gnashing.
Proof: This thread and all others like it.
Enjoy the next decade.
:rotfl:
Thanks, AM.:) That was some old school AM goodiness and brought a smile to my face and made me laugh out loud. Now, let's see who nibbles on the bait or swallows it whole. ;)
Quote from: Abyssal Maw;384616The entirety of the debate boils down to former gamers who no longer matter and their deep resentment of current gamers who do.
The flaw here is an assumption that there even exists a category of gamers that don't matter.
The fact that game companies want to design their new games, but not for everybody, is lamentable, and lends credence to any claims concerning the decline of the Industry as a whole.
Former gamers? The fuck?
AM, to be totally honest, none of this shit matters. People like me, like my friends...people in their early 20s who play Magic and video-games most of the time, who watch Robot Chicken and read Penny-Arcade, the people with disposable income and buy a few books here and there, and who sometimes run an RPG campaign...we're the people who matter. This "industry" doesn't matter. It's a fucking niche hobby. Anyone who participates in this hobby matters because it's a fucking piss-pond, but a piss-pond I'm quite happy to take part in.
When my friends and I break out 4e, or any other game, we're not doing it because we're worried about mattering, we do it because we want to play a fucking game that we enjoy. It could be fucking Stratego and we wouldn't give a shit. We're not worried about being a part of some subculture -- we're already part of one. We're geeks. We're the people who attend conventions that happen to matter, like PAX, which includes everything from video-games to tabletop games. Fuck, the indie games people ran out of stock at PAX -- what does that say about the subculture I happen belong to, one that is far more significant than any one that Wizards (or the hobby as a whole) could hope to garner?
But all of that, the subculture side of being a geek is a happy consequence of the popularity of certain forms of entertainment, nothing more. It is in no way the motivation for spending our time doing all of this. I was playing video-games before they were a 9-billion dollar industry and I'll continue playing them long after. If some guy wants to run an OD&D campaign and he's able to maintain a group of people for 30 years, I don't see that as any worse than someone who's able to put together an RPGA event. Hell, the RPGA doesn't even matter to most 4e players, especially newbloods who come into the hobby. They're not looking to be a part of something "bigger", they're just looking for a fun game to play with their friends, the same reason some college-kid goes out and buys Arkham Horror, or shit, Apples to Apples.
I've watched entire PC/video-game franchises rise and fall in popularity over the course of my time gaming. I've seen what happens when a company drops support for a line. But the thing I always loved about tabletop RPGs is that company support and marketing doesn't matter in terms of actually getting a group together and playing the game. We're not dependent upon master servers for our games. We're not dependent upon marketing, because the marketing doesn't penetrate the mainstream markets. Our games don't become more difficult to play as technology evolves and older software and hardware is left behind. All we need to get a game going is a creative spark and a few willing players.
There's a reason my non-gamer friends still break out Mario Party and Mario Kart 64. Having fun is far more important than being "relevant." They don't care if they matter to some geek subculture they have no clue of, they just want to play a game.
Yes, a gaming company should try to have their games appeal to as broad an audience as possible. Even anti-social jackasses who rage on the internet. There's a point however where a company should throw up its hands and decide not to waste their time. Backpedaling back to 3E might be a worthwhile endeavor, AD&D is not.
@Jeff: If we can agree on the shallowness, the full range of motivations explaining a given shallow interaction applies. And I concur that some of those motivations are pretty okay. Or at least non-malicious.
On the other hand, eliminating meaningful failure in commercial games is a tendency that is real as it is dangerous or despicable. And here I go on and say that WoW is despicable and liking it is the sign of bad personality traits. Not because it´s a computer game, No! But because it eliminates achievement and failure; it´s a designer drug.
If you can´t stand losing a power fantasy avatar (which would be replaced with a new one anyway in a matter of minutes!), or one of your power fantasy items, you have some issues that run deeper than just preference.
And I continue to say that such "games" are akin to consuming drugs, morally speaking. I would then go on and postulate that actual drugs offer a better experience than 4e for the same money and time investment. Added bonus of being more honest. Also, less, less boring.
Quote from: Peregrin;384629Former gamers? The fuck?
AM, to be totally honest, none of this shit matters. People like me, like my friends...people in their early 20s who play Magic and video-games most of the time, who watch Robot Chicken and read Penny-Arcade, the people with disposable income and buy a few books here and there, and who sometimes run an RPG campaign...we're the people who matter. This "industry" doesn't matter. It's a fucking niche hobby. Anyone who participates in this hobby matters because it's a fucking piss-pond, but a piss-pond I'm quite happy to take part in.
When my friends and I break out 4e, or any other game, we're not doing it because we're worried about mattering, we do it because we want to play a fucking game that we enjoy. It could be fucking Stratego and we wouldn't give a shit. We're not worried about being a part of some subculture -- we're already part of one. We're geeks. We're the people who attend conventions that happen to matter, like PAX, which includes everything from video-games to tabletop games. Fuck, the indie games people ran out of stock at PAX -- what does that say about the subculture I happen belong to, one that is far more significant than any one that Wizards (or the hobby as a whole) could hope to garner?
But all of that, the subculture side of being a geek is a happy consequence of the popularity of certain forms of entertainment, nothing more. It is in no way the motivation for spending our time doing all of this. I was playing video-games before they were a 9-billion dollar industry and I'll continue playing them long after. If some guy wants to run an OD&D campaign and he's able to maintain a group of people for 30 years, I don't see that as any worse than someone who's able to put together an RPGA event. Hell, the RPGA doesn't even matter to most 4e players, especially newbloods who come into the hobby. They're not looking to be a part of something "bigger", they're just looking for a fun game to play with their friends, the same reason some college-kid goes out and buys Arkham Horror, or shit, Apples to Apples.
I've watched entire PC/video-game franchises rise and fall in popularity over the course of my time gaming. I've seen what happens when a company drops support for a line. But the thing I always loved about tabletop RPGs is that company support and marketing doesn't matter in terms of actually getting a group together and playing the game. We're not dependent upon master servers for our games. We're not dependent upon marketing, because the marketing doesn't penetrate the mainstream markets. Our games don't become more difficult to play as technology evolves and older software and hardware is left behind. All we need to get a game going is a creative spark and a few willing players.
There's a reason my non-gamer friends still break out Mario Party and Mario Kart 64. Having fun is far more important than being "relevant." They don't care if they matter to some geek subculture they have no clue of, they just want to play a game.
Ok, the big problem with this is that you need to trim it down so I can put it in my sig.
Quote from: Abyssal Maw;384616The entirety of the debate boils down to former gamers who no longer matter and their deep resentment of current gamers who do.
Outside of your circle of junior high friends, you don't matter. It makes no difference how often and how loud you scream that you do, it simply isn't true. No one gives two shits about you or your gaming preferences.
Enjoy the next decade.
Quote from: DeadUematsu;384630Yes, a gaming company should try to have their games appeal to as broad an audience as possible. Even anti-social jackasses who rage on the internet. There's a point however where a company should throw up its hands and decide not to waste their time.
I agree, they should stop wasting their time trying to appeal to people like you.
QuoteBackpedaling back to 3E might be a worthwhile endeavor, AD&D is not.
Show us on the doll where AD&D touched you.
Good Lord, you are transparent.
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3606/3321829085_d7c38f2efd.jpg)
There are some things that just cannot be unseen. That pic sadly is one of them.
Quote from: Settembrini;384644(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3606/3321829085_d7c38f2efd.jpg)
Wow....
Somebody should shoop some labels into that photo. Like "magic item wishlist" on the basket, "action point" on the cane, etc.
As much as I'm against posting pics like that in general (c'mon, that IS an actual human being, and there might be health issues involved)..."magic item wishlist on the basket" still made me laugh.
Can't we find some massive goober in a klingon costume riding segway we could 'enhance' with some labels? I think there's real potential there.
Quote from: Settembrini;384639On the other hand, eliminating meaningful failure in commercial games is a tendency that is real as it is dangerous or despicable. And here I go on and say that WoW is despicable and liking it is the sign of bad personality traits. Not because it´s a computer game, No! But because it eliminates achievement and failure; it´s a designer drug.
I hate WoW as much as the next guy, but I'd be hard pressed to suggest that the majority of players have some sort of personal issue they need to deal with, considering the diversity of players and their backgrounds, and just how damned popular the thing is.
Plus, what if the same person who's had a WoW account for years also loves ludicrously difficult games like STALKER, Touhou, or Demons Stone? What does that indicate?
Quote from: Peregrin;384650Plus, what if the same person who's had a WoW account for years also loves ludicrously difficult games like STALKER, Touhou, or Demons Stone? What does that indicate?
The same thing it indicated before: Sett is completely full of shit.
Quote from: StormBringer;384643I agree, they should stop wasting their time trying to appeal to people like you.
Ah, yes, WotC should definitely not appeal to me and the ten others in my two gaming groups who play on a weekly or bi-weekly basis and who aren't irrationally opposed to 4E.
Stormbringer, you should definitely seek job opportunities at Wizards. With your acumen, D&D will surely take off in no time at all.
QuoteShow us on the doll where AD&D touched you.
Good Lord, you are transparent.
There is a reason why I said what I did.
At the most recent RP-related events I've been to, the number of 4E games being held has been consistently matched by 3E games being held. In fact, the only event where the number of AD&D games going on matched with either 3E/PF or 4E was the Dave Arneson Memorial Gameday (with each edition holding a game apiece). At all other events, there was zero to two old school games being held compared to the dozens of 3E/4E games going on.
Quote from: StormBringer;384642Enjoy the next decade.
I'm enjoying this one!
Quote from: Peregrin;384629Former gamers? The fuck?
AM, to be totally honest, none of this shit matters. People like me, like my friends...people in their early 20s who play Magic and video-games most of the time, who watch Robot Chicken and read Penny-Arcade, the people with disposable income and buy a few books here and there, and who sometimes run an RPG campaign...we're the people who matter. This "industry" doesn't matter. It's a fucking niche hobby. Anyone who participates in this hobby matters because it's a fucking piss-pond, but a piss-pond I'm quite happy to take part in.
When my friends and I break out 4e, or any other game, we're not doing it because we're worried about mattering, we do it because we want to play a fucking game that we enjoy. It could be fucking Stratego and we wouldn't give a shit. We're not worried about being a part of some subculture -- we're already part of one. We're geeks. We're the people who attend conventions that happen to matter, like PAX, which includes everything from video-games to tabletop games. Fuck, the indie games people ran out of stock at PAX -- what does that say about the subculture I happen belong to, one that is far more significant than any one that Wizards (or the hobby as a whole) could hope to garner?
But all of that, the subculture side of being a geek is a happy consequence of the popularity of certain forms of entertainment, nothing more. It is in no way the motivation for spending our time doing all of this. I was playing video-games before they were a 9-billion dollar industry and I'll continue playing them long after. If some guy wants to run an OD&D campaign and he's able to maintain a group of people for 30 years, I don't see that as any worse than someone who's able to put together an RPGA event. Hell, the RPGA doesn't even matter to most 4e players, especially newbloods who come into the hobby. They're not looking to be a part of something "bigger", they're just looking for a fun game to play with their friends, the same reason some college-kid goes out and buys Arkham Horror, or shit, Apples to Apples.
I've watched entire PC/video-game franchises rise and fall in popularity over the course of my time gaming. I've seen what happens when a company drops support for a line. But the thing I always loved about tabletop RPGs is that company support and marketing doesn't matter in terms of actually getting a group together and playing the game. We're not dependent upon master servers for our games. We're not dependent upon marketing, because the marketing doesn't penetrate the mainstream markets. Our games don't become more difficult to play as technology evolves and older software and hardware is left behind. All we need to get a game going is a creative spark and a few willing players.
There's a reason my non-gamer friends still break out Mario Party and Mario Kart 64. Having fun is far more important than being "relevant." They don't care if they matter to some geek subculture they have no clue of, they just want to play a game.
Well, I agree with all of this. But I don't think that former gamers are the norm. I'm really only talking about the haters who post here incessantly. They're stuck, they're done, this is the end of the line, right here. And we all know it.
Quote from: DeadUematsu;384663At all other events, there was zero to two old school games being held compared to the dozens of 3E/4E games going on.
Wait. This is too gorgeous. You went a gaming event and
over ten percent of the games being played belonged to systems that are 40 years old, out of print, have no support from the licence-holder, and are actively rubbished by the publisher in order to increase sales of the latest edition, and to you it's evidence that old school games are dead and buried.
I'd say this is pretty much a wrap. Now we just wait for the obligatory mine-quote and strawman from AM, and we can laugh heartily and move on.
Incidentally, it's interesting that the most rabid 4E evangelists all have in common a bitter and spiteful hatred of systems that give the GM some authority over the game, and in moments of anger bring up their terrible experiences at the hands of some nasty DM. Interesting how past trauma can affect current outlook. Maybe I'm not scarred enough to find 4E appealing.
Quote from: Hairfoot;384676Wait. This is too gorgeous. You went a gaming event and over ten percent of the games being played belonged to systems that are 40 years old, out of print, have no support from the licence-holder, and are actively rubbished by the publisher in order to increase sales of the latest edition, and to you it's evidence that old school games are dead and buried.
Err. No.
Dozens as in several dozen means that at best older editions of D&D combined comprised 7% of the games being played at an event or at worst 0% (being no one bothered to run it). It's evidence that if WotC were to mull reprinting 1st Edition AD&D, they would be out of their minds. It might be commercially viable for a small-time outfit but Wizards makes Magic for chrissake and the number of 3E games going indicates a target population light years more satisfactory in results than the one old edition gamers could produce.
QuoteI'd say this is pretty much a wrap. Now we just wait for the obligatory mine-quote and strawman from AM, and we can laugh heartily and move on.
Now now, don't be so bitter about not being important.
QuoteIncidentally, it's interesting that the most rabid 4E evangelists all have in common a bitter and spiteful hatred of systems that give the GM some authority over the game, and in moments of anger bring up their terrible experiences at the hands of some nasty DM. Interesting how past trauma can affect current outlook. Maybe I'm not scarred enough to find 4E appealing.
Aww, it's so cute how you're channeling StormBringer. Honestly though, I'm not a 4E advocate and I believe the game sorely needs improvement. That said, I never said gamemasters shouldn't have some authority over the game. It's just ludicrous to assume they should have license to do whatever they please and it required no drama to come to this conclusion.
Quote from: DeadUematsu;384682Err. No.
Dozens as in several dozen means that at best older editions of D&D combined comprised 7% of the games being played at an event or at worst 0% (being no one bothered to run it). It's evidence that if WotC were to mull reprinting 1st Edition AD&D, they would be out of their minds.
Ah, so you've moved the goalposts from "old-school is dead" to "old-school isn't very profitable for a large corporation". It's okay. No-one will notice.
Quote from: DeadUematsu;384682Now now, don't be so bitter about not being important.
Have you noticed how often you and AM mention being "important"? Is that related to your anger at GMs? Winding so much ego up in the games you play might be why you're so prone to confirmation bias.
Your argument seems to be that the games you don't like are objectively poor because Hasbro isn't begging you to buy them. I'm not a marketing professional, but you may have to consider that Hasbro actually loves your money, not you. The design team isn't thinking fondly of their favourite customer, DeadUematsu, and pitching their promotions in the hope you'll give them some affection.
Quote from: DeadUematsu;384682Aww, it's so cute how you're channeling StormBringer. Honestly though, I'm not a 4E advocate and I believe the game sorely needs improvement. That said, I never said gamemasters shouldn't have some authority over the game. It's just ludicrous to assume they should have license to do whatever they please and it required no drama to come to this conclusion.
Can you really read what you write and not see the bitterness leaping out of the screen at you? Who was this horrible DM who wronged you so badly? Was it physical?
Quote from: Hairfoot;384684Ah, so you've moved the goalposts from "old-school is dead" to "old-school isn't very profitable for a large corporation". It's okay. No-one will notice.
Never said it in the first place.
QuoteHave you noticed how often you and AM mention being "important"? Is that related to your anger at GMs? Winding so much ego up in the games you play might be why you're so prone to confirmation bias.
This is like the one time I have used it. I admit that AM uses it very often but I doubt he would if it just didn't sour you and others like you so greatly.
QuoteYour argument seems to be that the games you don't like are objectively poor because Hasbro isn't begging you to buy them. I'm not a marketing professional, but you may have to consider that Hasbro actually loves your money, not you. The design team isn't thinking fondly of their favourite customer, DeadUematsu, and pitching their promotions in the hope you'll give them some affection.
Ah no. My argument is that WotC doesn't give a shit about the older edition audience because there is more money to be made with the audience of newer editions. As for the rest of your paragraph, what the fuck? Of course, WotC is a business, wants my money, and doesn't want to double over catering to me. I am under no delusions here. If they just so happen to make products I like, I buy them (like I buy their miniatures and dungeon tiles). I see nothing wrong with that at all.
QuoteCan you really read what you write and not see the bitterness leaping out of the screen at you? Who was this horrible DM who wronged you so badly? Was it physical?
You know, the more you channel StormBringer, the more you sound like some sick perverted psychiatrist.
Quote from: Drohem;384617:rotfl:
Thanks, AM.:) That was some old school AM goodiness and brought a smile to my face and made me laugh out loud. Now, let's see who nibbles on the bait or swallows it whole. ;)
44 minutes! I was expecting closer to 5!
Quote from: DeadUematsu;384688This is like the one time I have used it. I admit that AM uses it very often but I doubt he would if it just didn't sour you and others like you so greatly.
A rhetorical trick so old it probably has a latin name. You, AM and Pseudoephedrine invariably cough up the same hackneyed and easily-destroyed arguments, then claim you were trolling when you wind up looking at your arse on a plate.
Quote from: DeadUematsu;384688My argument is that WotC doesn't give a shit about the older edition audience because there is more money to be made with the audience of newer editions.
Do you believe that? No-one else does. Your relentless attacks on non-4E editions of D&D always come back to that strange and manic bitterness over the power of DMs. Which brings us to:
Quote from: DeadUematsu;384688You know, the more you channel StormBringer, the more you sound like some sick perverted psychiatrist.
What was I thinking? Your florid and completely disproportionate reaction proves that bastard DMs are in no way linked to your hatred of old-edition D&D.
Quote from: Doom;384647As much as I'm against posting pics like that in general (c'mon, that IS an actual human being, and there might be health issues involved)..."magic item wishlist on the basket" still made me laugh.
Same here.
Quote from: Windjammer;384543tolerate antisocial behaviour like listening to i-tunes while playing. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dviVx60qSrA#t=0m40s)
The crazy thing is that this isn't really an aberration. Constantly listening to your iPod and text-chatting on your phone is the norm for people under 20.
I think the next decade, like the last, will see the demographics of tabletop gamers skewing increasingly older. 4E strikes me as an attempt to pull the millennial mini and card-collector kids into the roleplaying hobby, but I think it was probably a couple of years too late. Those kids have sold their Pokemon cards and gone to college.
Quote from: EmboldenedNavigator;384736The crazy thing is that this isn't really an aberration. Constantly listening to your iPod and text-chatting on your phone is the norm for people under 20.
I think the next decade, like the last, will see the demographics of tabletop gamers skewing increasingly older. 4E strikes me as an attempt to pull the millennial mini and card-collector kids into the roleplaying hobby, but I think it was probably a couple of years too late. Those kids have sold their Pokemon cards and gone to college.
Speaking as a 22-year-old, those people are still generally considered dicks if they're ignoring other people or doing something else.
Also, what collectable aspects of 4e are there? As a Magic player, I find the collectable and "card" aspects severely lacking, to the point where I doubt that was even a thought. White-Wolf lines have more collect-ability, even if only for the half-ass fiction. Gamma World may be a different story, though, and I won't be touching that shit with a ten foot pole.
As for the minis, it doesn't feel any different in practice than 3e did to me, in terms of how people actually play. I played in a 3.5 campaign alongside a 4e one for a couple of weeks, and mini use was just as prominent (in fact,
overbearing, due to the fact that they're wargame grognards) in the 3.5 campaign. Hell, back before 4e came out, a lot of the 3.5 people I played with considered running narrative combat a "hippie" exercise.
Quote from: Peregrin;384738Speaking as a 22-year-old, those people are still generally considered dicks if they're ignoring other people or doing something else.
Yes, as a
22 year-old. I'm not that much older than you either. The whole "hyperconnected" thing is really a recent phenomenon with kids whose development occurred concurrently with the ubiquity of web gadgets. Current college age kids are still pretty normal. High schoolers and middle schoolers (the prime RPG-introduction range) are basically inattentive cyborgs.
QuoteAlso, what collectable aspects of 4e are there?
Minis, tiles, power cards. There's also the more rigid "encounter" structure and emphasis on non-simulative tactics. I don't mean to imply that there's anything necessarily wrong with this (though I do think 4E, specifically, was poorly implemented), but there are many "collectible game" trappings that are consciously intended to increase the appeal to other breeds of millennial hobbyist.
QuoteAs for the minis, it doesn't feel any different in practice than 3e did to me, in terms of how people actually play.
This is certainly true of 3.5. When d20 came out, most people I know still played it without mats or minis. By 2005, WotC's increased emphasis on mini use had made them standard. 4E ran with it to an even greater extent, and while their use isn't that much different in practice, the mini-aspect is definitely more heavily emphasized.
Quote from: Peregrin;384650I hate WoW as much as the next guy, but I'd be hard pressed to suggest that the majority of players have some sort of personal issue they need to deal with, considering the diversity of players and their backgrounds, and just how damned popular the thing is.
I was a bit imprecise: You don´t need to have actual psychological issues to fall for designer drugs. I would not even say most WoW people have any real issues, besides an addiction. But it [an addiction] is a sign of bad personality traits and, in the case of something that needs so much effort to get into as RPGs aka 4e: bad ethical traits.
Something can only be an addiction if it interferes with your day-to-day life. I don't know of any studies in reference to MMOs or other games and the prevalence of real addiction vs perceived. Most of the cases made public about WoW and other MMOs seem to be outlier cases.
Also, 4e doesn't take much effort to get into, at all. It's fairly drag-and-drop in nature. Personally, I consider that a bonus, since I can work, go to class, and maintain a social life and still have time to prep an adventure for the weekend.
Are you kidding me? What is up with you?
Many people drink alcohol, are addicted, but function like a clockwork. I think you need to widen your understanding of drug & addiction. Mabye smoking is more understandable to you.
Quote from: Windjammer;384556Magic parcels and rust monsters recycling destroyed equipment out of their arse ... these are things which strike me as prime examples of single-session design artificialities; as artificialities which lose their rationale the moment they hit the game table of an ongoing campaign among friends.
Bad example. These are "artificialities" which facilitate at-table gameplay by redacting useless and overly complicated rules from the weekly game table. In my experience the magical device creation rules in 3.X are notoriously difficult to implement or use meanngfully in play, and are usually ignored. YMMV of course, but in all my years of GMing and playing those editions no one even wastes the feat space on it; it's too time-stopping/immersion breaking and slows down play needlessly for others at the table. IMO this is one thing 4E did right.
Also, a correction: rust monsters do not spit recycled equipment outta their ass, though you can cut them open and recover refined residdum from destroyed magical devices. A minor distinction, but a lack of accuracy when mocking something leave me suspect at the veracity of the rest of your post. The only argument or derision I recalled about this when it first appeared was that the residuum was valued at its full worth (so that the material could be used to recreate the item, presumably) though I find that there is no less an issue here than any others which I tentacled metal-rusting monster would cause under normal discourse.
Actually, I really disagree with your whole single-session notion, as far too many components of 4E (from healing surges to the overall power mechanic) feel strongly to me like mechanisms designed to encourage long-term game play; the whole system is built around the Pavolovian reward mechanic that is typical in MMOs, providing a concise, tasty treat at every level, and mechanisms for keeping one's character alive over a prolonged period. But yeah, it does demo well in game stores, no argument there.
There's a nuance you're missing, man. It's fundamental to an addiction.
An addict cannot control their need or their urges. If you took something away from an addict, they would have withdrawal, whether psychological or physical. A person who drinks a few times a week might go fine without alcohol for months at a time, but a smoker would immediately begin to have cravings and their behavior would also change. You might say that being an alcoholic may not interrupt your daily life, but that is because circumstances are aligned just right for the addict. One change in their life and it all comes tumbling apart. Even then, the alcohol is still more than likely affecting their performance at work and their mental health and they cannot stop even if they realize their performance in day-to-day activities is suffering. Sure, you can say that someone seems to be functioning "like clockwork", but if you examined them the way a health professional would, they would see lost potential and behavioral abnormalities.
I think you're confusing addiction with a habit. If someone has a habit, you can circumvent it and it won't cause any problems. Some people spend a lot of time online, but then go on vacation and don't once have the urge to check their mail or visit websites, because their use of the internet is habit, not an addiction.
The only way to tell an addiction apart from the habit is to analyze a person's day-to-day performance, their behavior, and then observe what happens when the object of their addiction is taken away. If there are any studies done in regards to gaming, I'd be glad to look at them. Otherwise it's all speculation.
Our arguments are ships passing at night.
Quote from: Settembrini;384751Our arguments are ships passing at night.
Inconsequential dude. By this reasoning, none of the internet matters at all. Yet here we are. ;)
Sometimes you get deluded into thinking communication is indeed possible...anyhoo, I daresay the obesity scooter argument might fly a little on it´s own.
I´ll close it with a nod to AM:
WotC-Ad:
http://content.costco.com/Images/Content/Product/310142SB.jpg
Quote from: Benoist;384752Inconsequential dude. By this reasoning, none of the internet matters at all. Yet here we are. ;)
To online forum posters, one would like to think things matter (based on egocentricity).
To people who don't hang out on a particular online forum message board, it mind as well be millions of ships passing one another.
Quote from: ggroy;384754To online forum posters, one would like to think things matter (based on egocentricity).
To people who don't hang out on a particular online forum message board, it mind as well be millions of ships passing one another.
Sure. I'm not denying it. Though again, as has been alluded to on the thread, we're part of a significantly small online community some gaming companies pay attention to. I don't think anyone of us matters in particular, but the online crowd does provide a background noise some are listening to.
That, and of course... here we are nonetheless! :D
Quote from: Peregrin;384748There's a nuance you're missing, man. It's fundamental to an addiction.
An addict cannot control their need or their urges. If you took something away from an addict, they would have withdrawal, whether psychological or physical.
I think you guys are talking past each other here. Sett is right when he says that many addicts have perfectly normal, apparently functional lives (we're in fact all addicts in our own particular ways, whatever the addiction may be: sure, it could be alcohol, coke or w/e, but it could be recognition, acceptance, etc etc just as well). If, however, the source of addiction was to be taken from them, then withdrawal would set in, with varying degrees of self-loathing, destruction and otherwise nasty effects on one's life (and significant others').
I apologize for not keeping my posts more focused, but I still don't agree with the premise that you can judge someone's character based on their pastimes. I think there are just too many variables at work when it comes to making up a person's psyche.
Sett's not going to convince me otherwise, and I doubt he'll change his mind either. I don't have the hard evidence to help me revise my own thoughts, and I can't readily provide any evidence to counter (at least not without doing a significant amount of research and reading), so even if my posts didn't wander it would still be spinning wheels.
I've never told anyone this, but I'm an oxygen addict.
Pathetic, I know, but I just can't live without it.
Quote from: camazotz;384747Also, a correction: rust monsters do not spit recycled equipment outta their ass, though you can cut them open and recover refined residdum from destroyed magical devices. A minor distinction, but a lack of accuracy when mocking something leave me suspect at the veracity of the rest of your post.
Sure, just leave out all the other possibilities why I might have compressed my statement about how rust monsters functioned. We've been through the 4e rust monster discussion at greater length before; if you recall, the point there being made how it's a direct translation of how the RPGA handled sundered PC weapons in 3.x times. It's a single session resolution artificiality, facilitating your PCs transfer from one game group to another, which is mandatory in a set up like the RPGAs. (Not that 4E still allows for PC weapons being sundered or picked up by monsters anyway.)
I also fail to see how healing surges and daily powers are designed towards a play style that transcends a single session, so could you care to elaborate that point?
Quote from: EmboldenedNavigator;384760I've never told anyone this, but I'm an oxygen addict.
Pathetic, I know, but I just can't live without it.
WARNING: Withdrawal effects include asphyxia and death. :D
Quote from: Peregrin;384759I apologize for not keeping my posts more focused, but I still don't agree with the premise that you can judge someone's character based on their pastimes. I think there are just too many variables at work when it comes to making up a person's psyche.
Well, if it were so, that is, if there were just too many variables to make up a person's psyche, then you wouldn't ever be able to get a grasp of one's personality though, would you?
I don't think it's the case. I think one may get a grasp on a person's personality traits, and overall psyche, following a set of clues in how the person behaves, the clothes' she's wearing, the music she likes, and so on, so forth. Tastes may inform a judgment here. The real problem is that context always matters in formulating such judgments, with just one set of tastes (for instance: "I like 4e!") being anecdotic at best, as far as evidence is concerned.
It's just not enough evidence to form a judgment, particularly when you don't know what, exactly, the person likes about 4e. Could be anything from liking to play D&D Experience or Delves to liking this or that rule or whatever. Could even be a reason that actually has nothing to do with the game itself, like a desire to be relevant to the gaming community at large. So... just saying "I like 4e!" isn't enough evidence for me to pass judgment on a particular individual, one way or another.
So the requirement we're working with here is that:
a) A person has more than a passing interest in the object of attention and
b) That we understand the reasons they like said object and why they devote a significant portion of their time, income, whatever to it
Someone who is obsessed with a pop-star vs. someone who happens to have their music on their media player?
That I can see, but the way Sett said it made it sound like he was painting much broader strokes.
Quote from: Peregrin;384766So the requirement we're working with here is that:
a) A person has more than a passing interest in the object of attention and
b) That we understand the reasons they like said object and why they devote a significant portion of their time, income, whatever to it
Someone who is obsessed with a pop-star vs. someone who happens to have their music on their media player?
Could be that yes, though sometimes, the seemingly most innocuous clues might inform greatly in this regard. I think that each particular reason has to be examined in regards to a particular personality lense, so to speak, with each window informing a better understanding of the overall shape and features of the house you're standing in, so to speak. It's a question of perspective and relationship between all these elements (emotions, ethics, tastes, w/e), with each new piece of the puzzle modifying your assessment as you go, IME.
Quote from: Peregrin;384766That I can see, but the way Sett said it made it sound like he was painting much broader strokes.
From where I'm standing too: Sett was painting in WAY too broad strokes. I'm guessing he intended to provoke a reaction rather than really engage in an exchange that, as we now know, he didn't think would be fruitful in the first place.
Quote from: Benoist;384767From where I'm standing too: Sett was painting in WAY too broad strokes. I'm guessing he intended to provoke a reaction rather than really engage in an exchange that, as we now know, he didn't think would be fruitful in the first place.
Unless you fully agree with every premise and consequent conclusion he presents, an exchange with Sett will never be particularly fruitful.
Quote from: StormBringer;384770Unless you fully agree with every premise and consequent conclusion he presents, an exchange with Sett will never be particularly fruitful.
As far as conversations with Sett are concerned, I disagree. Once you get beyond the blunt
form of his posts, Sett actually often has something interesting to say about all sorts of topics. I don't exactly know where the blunt, affirmative force comes from. I suspect it's in part due to his Prussian heritage, though being French myself, I'm obviously biased about this. ;)
Now, if you engage in a conversation with anyone, anywhere, without agreeing first on its premise, the conversation won't go anywhere now, will it?
Quote from: Benoist;384771As far as conversations with Sett are concerned, I disagree. Once you get beyond the blunt form of his posts, Sett actually often has something interesting to say about all sorts of topics. I don't exactly know where the blunt, affirmative force comes from. I suspect it's in part due to his Prussian heritage, though being French myself, I'm obviously biased about this. ;)
Now, if you engage in a conversation with anyone, anywhere, without agreeing first on its premise, the conversation won't go anywhere now, will it?
Nah, part of any good conversation is the discussion of the premise. If the premise is incorrect,
then the conversation won't go anywhere.
Ex falso quodlibet.
Quote from: StormBringer;384781If the premise is incorrect, then the conversation won't go anywhere.
It depends on how you define "anywhere." Assuming there's only one true ideology, religion, etc., many important and interesting conversations aren't based on true premises.
Quote from: EmboldenedNavigator;384783It depends on how you define "anywhere." Assuming there's only one true ideology, religion, etc., many important and interesting conversations aren't based on true premises.
That is impossible, actually. Interesting, perhaps. Important? Not possible. And a correct premise doesn't depend on 'one true' anything.
Admittedly, if the parties to a conversation
agree on a premise, that can lead to some interesting discussion. Generally, only in a design context, however. Once everyone agrees to discuss a false or incorrect premise, you are well in the territory of 'what if?' or make believe. We can agree to start with a premise that the sky isn't blue, or that elves exist, but clearly we won't be drawing any generally useful conclusions from that. Certainly some interesting conclusions can be drawn for a campaign or game's design, but we aren't discussing that here.
Quote from: StormBringer;384791That is impossible, actually.
No, it's perfectly possible. Plenty of historically and culturally important discourses have been premised on horse shit. You don't even have to limit it to wishy-washy fields like politics and religion. Plenty of scientific progress has occurred on the basis of faulty theoretical assumptions that were eventually refined or overturned completely.
QuoteAnd a correct premise doesn't depend on 'one true' anything.
At the very least, it depends on a true premise unless you want to alter the commonly understood definition of "correct." My point, however, was that if you believe, at some point, two conversations with mutually exclusive premises have "gone somewhere," your statement was incorrect.
Quote from: EmboldenedNavigator;384802No, it's perfectly possible. Plenty of historically and culturally important discourses have been premised on horse shit. You don't even have to limit it to wishy-washy fields like politics and religion. Plenty of scientific progress has occurred on the basis of faulty theoretical assumptions that were eventually refined or overturned completely.
Try again. That is almost the entire point of 'science'. We aren't doing science here. Faulty premise = faulty conclusion = not meaningful, except for game design or world building.