houstonderek's page

thejeff wrote:

I'm not sure it's quite that simple. Women can be completely vile and graphic when they talk about sex and still be offended by sexual objectification and exploitation in media and advertising.

Often it isn't the existence of sexual content that's objected to, but that the women in question are portrayed as sexual objects for men's pleasure.

The two things aren't directly related.

This kind of thing is why I am often conflicted and confused. Should I be offended when I see women portrayed as sexual objects for womens' pleasure or men portrayed as sexual objects for mens' pleasure?

It's easier to just not be offended at all.

houstonderek wrote:

Exactly. This is why I think the topic is silly. Sexuality is a very natural thing, people like things that turn them on. This whole debate has nothing to do with politically correct views on the objectification of the sexes, and everything to do with Americans basically being prudish, Puritanical sticks in the mud. Western Europeans are far more "liberal" than Americans, and they do not get bent out of shape by sex. Heck, they have nudity in commercials. As far as I can tell, they don't see it as "exploitation", they just see it as an acknowledgement of the fact that people have sex, they like pretty people and there you are.

(In the following, the "you" pronoun and its derivatives are the general you, not directed at you, Umbral Reaver, specifically. I know you know this :-) )

American feminism is fine when it addresses inequities in the workplace and issues of violence against women. It goes off the rails when it casts women as weak and exploited victims to male sexuality. If you've ever spent ten minutes with women when they talk about sex, you'd know they are far more vile and graphic than men could ever be. I've had my lesbian friends make me blush with some of their comments, and, as Kirth could tell you, I'm shocked by nothing!

I'm not sure it's quite that simple. Women can be completely vile and graphic when they talk about sex and still be offended by sexual objectification and exploitation in media and advertising.

Often it isn't the existence of sexual content that's objected to, but that the women in question are portrayed as sexual objects for men's pleasure.

The two things aren't directly related.

I don't even know how to respond here. It smacks of '70s style second wave feminism. Men are to be emasculated and completely shames for having any thoughts about women that aren't "respectful". Advertisers should completely ignore that sex sells. Men are puerile, juvenile animals who must never look when an attractive woman walks past and think "Wow. She's hot".

It's all BS, really. People get offended just to be offended a lot of the time, because the PC crowd tells them they should be. And it's hypocritical. The only reason the Twilight movies are popular is because they objectify a bunch of well build shirtless Metrosexual boy toys as sexual objects for women's pleasure. Seriously.

Exactly.

Wow, I can't believe people are buying into that dbag's act.

Sebastian wrote:

That was intentional. I don't want people to read touchy feely crap like that and think it's an official statement.

So, you admit you have a touchy feely side? Interesting. Kind of like "there is still good in you, the Emperor hasn't driven it from you fully."

Just make sure to let me know which part is the touchy part. That part I want to stay away from.

Funny, I thought he was admitting to being touched in the bad place and was just showing us where on the dolly...

4d6, drop the lowest, any order. Roll three sets, take the one you want.

So, in Pathfinder art we have plenty of skimpily dressed, buxom women, and plenty of modestly proportioned, well dressed women. Where are all the buxom, well-dressed women? I do enjoy a full-figured woman that knows how to dress attractively without having to show loads of skin.

As a lesbian gamer, I often struggle with feminism and ideal character appearances. I've been oppressed enough that I rarely know if I'm 'allowed' to find something sexy or if such thoughts are sexist. :|

Exactly. This is why I think the topic is silly. Sexuality is a very natural thing, people like things that turn them on. This whole debate has nothing to do with politically correct views on the objectification of the sexes, and everything to do with Americans basically being prudish, Puritanical sticks in the mud. Western Europeans are far more "liberal" than Americans, and they do not get bent out of shape by sex. Heck, they have nudity in commercials. As far as I can tell, they don't see it as "exploitation", they just see it as an acknowledgement of the fact that people have sex, they like pretty people and there you are.

(In the following, the "you" pronoun and its derivatives are the general you, not directed at you, Umbral Reaver, specifically. I know you know this :-) )

American feminism is fine when it addresses inequities in the workplace and issues of violence against women. It goes off the rails when it casts women as weak and exploited victims to male sexuality. If you've ever spent ten minutes with women when they talk about sex, you'd know they are far more vile and graphic than men could ever be. I've had my lesbian friends make me blush with some of their comments, and, as Kirth could tell you, I'm shocked by nothing!

Umbral, let go of any of those concerns you have. You are a woman, don't let society dictate how you should think, how you should respond to things that titillate you, and how you express your sexuality. They don't have that right.

I haven't opened my core book up in a long time, I just use the SRD, which has everything in one place, so I didn't realize the book was like that.

Original would be, in my opinion, the three lttle books, of which I only have the Monster and Treasure assortment still in my collection. It predates both first edition AD&D and Basic D&D by three to four years depending on how you count it. The Acaeum is your friend

http://www.acaeum.com/

edit: I also still have my battered copy of the "Outdoor Survival Game"

In chronological order:

OD&D (1974 - four year run, realistically): The three original digest books with Greyhawk Suppliment, Blackmoor suppliment, Eldritch Wizardry suppliment, gods demigods and heroes suppliment and swords and spells.

Holmes Basic D&D (1977 - four year run): the original "basic" D&D, an attempt to clean up D&D.

AD&D (1977 - twelve year run): 1e Officially started in '77 with the release of the Monster Manual, wasn't a complete game until '79 with the release of the DMG.

Moldvay/Cook Basic and Expert D&D (started 1981 - two year run): a rewrite of OD&D (sort of) aimed at younger players, though it was quite popular with older gamers as well.

BECMI (started 1983 - eight year run): Frank Mentzer's rewrite of basic & expert with expansions all the way to "god" level.

AD&D Second Edition (1989 - eleven year run): Dave Cook's rewrite of AD&D. Included in this is "skills and powers", etc. as they were optional rules, even though they're commonly referred to as "2.5"

D&D Rules Cyclopedia (1991): The "fifth" edition of Original D&D in a way. Compiled and revised "basic" rules.

D&D Third Edition (2000 - three year run): Yeah.

3.5 (2003 - five year run): Yep

4e (2008 - run not done quite yet): And here we are.

5e: ?

I was keeping the discussion D&D, but, yeah, Buck Rogers was a debacle.

Lorraine: "hey, my family owns the rights to this, do something and make it work!"

TSR writers: "..."

Fan base: "who gives a flip about Buck Rogers???"

The only D&D products that I have knowledge about actually going to a landfill are a whole rune of AD&D player's handbooks (Some did make it to market, but many were pitched - this was the result of a "lose" guide wire on the press putting a cut down the covers) and about 13,000 copies of Palace of the Silver Princess, which went in the dumpster behind the office for reasons I think everyone, by now, is aware of.

Second edition. A bunch of campaign setting stuff and accessory type stuff were trashed, sent to New Mexico I think, when TSR went down. Stuff like Al Qadim, Maztica, Bithright, etc, some genius at TSR thought would sell as well as, say, Forgotten Realms, and was allotted print runs accordingly.

That's not the issue. People are saying that they did have issues with the 3E Grapple rules. You said it's easy, it's a no brainer, etc. . . and then say that you house rule it, so it's easy for you.

We need to just drop it though. It wasn't my intention to stat a stupid arguing match but rather to not start one.

No, I said I have no problems with Pathfinder's rules. CMB/CMD is easy. Much easier than 3.5's rules.

Since when does an OK Cupid "survey" count for anything? They're not exactly a credible institution.

I don't care if it supports or detracts any of your arguments, I just think it's useless data. Maybe I'm still bitter because they hate atheists*.

*statement based on hearsay

You're thinking about a different dating site. OK Cupid doesn't hate atheists, not by a long shot. You're thinking of E Harmony.

Ok Cupid was started not as a dating site (although it was set up that way), it was set up as a research tool to study attraction and the differences between groups of people. The site is very popular with polyamourous people, GLBT people, hipsters, punk rockers, all kinds of people with an edge, with a lot of vanilla around either checking it out or trying to take a walk on the wild side.

They show all of their data (extrapolated from their mining of user messages, rankings, journals, profile views, match questions and all sorts of other things) when they post their blog entries, and it is pretty fascinating stuff.

In the interests of full disclosure, I use the site (I've met some amazing women there), am an atheist (and very up front about it there) and have never had any issues at all.

I've never, not one time, on these boards, said 4e was a bad system. I just don't think the CMB thing is that hard to use. It certainly isn't the 1e craziness of the grapple/overbear/pummel system.

I've actually never seen the 4e mechanic used, it's never been attempted in a game I've played (and I played some this weekend at a con), so I have no idea how easy or hard it is compared to PF or earlier editions. I don't own the books, nor do I have a DDI sub, so I can't really look at them either right now to form an opinion.

Saying one thing is easy isn't the same as saying something else is bad. False equivalency.

(And memorax and I weren't discussing grappling in those last two posts, more of a continuation of a (now settled) conversation over the last few days)

houstonderek wrote:

And that they admit to have been working on it since 2010 is also indicative that perhaps sales aren't as rosy as they were letting on. They're not going to say the reason was bad sales, because that would just add more fuel to the fire

I remember back when TSR started having its problems, and pretty much stopped putting stuff out. Their excuse? Printer problems...

Now, everyone (at least within my circles at the time) knew they were blowing smoke, but still all they would admit to was "printer problems"...

So no, one would be VERY hard pressed to find a company that is going to admit things are any less than "rosy"...

Even funnier considering they pretty much filled a landfill with product that just sat in a warehouse because they overestimated the market for campaign settings and whatnot and couldn't move it.

Payoff at the end? Priceless.

M&Ms

Steve, you kind of answer your own question about disclosure and stuff above. WotC's people can pretty much say what they want about how well things are selling, as their D&D sales don't affect what Hasbro stock sells for. The CCgs are the only thing ever mentioned in Hasbro's quarterlies, so D&D doesn't even register as a blip to their stock holders. The SEC isn't going to go "Enron" on Hasbro because a WotC guy said "sales are good!". That statement is completely subjective and not legally actionable in a court anyway.

I'm about 100% sure D&D is profitable. I just don't think it's as profitable as they projected. And, like Finn pointed out, if they say they're changing editions because sales didn't meet their projections, the change is going to be seen as desperation, not a stab at reconciliation. Really bad PR.

Good stuff The 8th Dwarf! New things to look for in the import bin :-)

You may have a point, but I respectfully disagree. I'm not sure Hasbro would green light a project to replace a profitable product line that's meeting expectations on what would basically be a PR move.

And CEOs of publicly traded companies rarely disclose poor sales figures. Lots of publicly traded companies talk about how well they're doing until they lock the doors. Now, WotC is in no danger of that, being a division of Hasbro, but their D&D wing is second fiddle to the CCG side, and never gets mentioned in quarterly reports.

And that they admit to have been working on it since 2010 is also indicative that perhaps sales aren't as rosy as they were letting on. They're not going to say the reason was bad sales, because that would just add more fuel to the fire, they're going to say they want old players back because it looks like they're being contrite and admitting they were wrong. I.e. good PR.

They want old players back, so they're going to say whatever it takes to convince us they won't dismiss us again. And I hope they make a great game. If they can pull off what they're trying to do, it would be pretty amazing, and only an awesome game would do it.

Both Marice Jones-Drew and Bryant Westbrook have stopped at the one to end a game in recent years when they could have scored. It's happened more than a few times over the years, actually. Rare, but it's happened.

I don't worry about things that didn't happen. Completely pointless. Yes, it could have been a failure. Paizo didn't take anything for granted, and they had very modest goals. But they succeeded.

And, again, I'm not saying 4e is a bad system, and I'm not saying people don't like it. I'm saying WotC doesn't think it is a success. They didn't meet their sales goals. They have to answer to corporate overlords.

And, to be honest, I really don't care. I'm just tickled that, after all of the shouting down and attacking anyone who said "hey, maybe 4e isn't doing as well as people think", even people who didn't have a stake and were just comparing anecdotal stories, 4e fans are STILL going at it.

Seriously, WotC wants to get back old gamers, like they did with 3x in 2000. And all those sacred cows that 4e fans hate, a lot of whom didn't start until 3x and have no emotional attachment to them, are what is going to bring the players they lost back into the fold.

And, you know what? I didn't start posting in this thread until y'all started going on about how the older generation should, and I'm paraphrasing, shut the f@&~ up because they're nostalgic fatbeards who don't matter. That pissed me off. So, here I am.

Wow, this is a silly topic.

houstonderek wrote:

momorax, keep thinking the change to 2e and the change to 3e were in any way as cataclysmic as the change to 4e. TSR didn't die because they revised AD&D, they died because they glutted the market with crap product. Players didn't have any option for new product with the 2e change and the 3x change. Players had an option after the 4e change. And about half the base exercised that option. I hated 2e, seriously, but it had zero impact on TSR.

memorax wrote:

Which I disagree with. You know I don't think you understand difference between a fact an opinion. In your opinion 2E failed because TSR flooded the market with too many products. I agree wtih that. I also think that every time a game changes editions some of the fanbase do not want to switch over. It was very visisble with 4E. Yet imo it happens all the time.

Nope. Jacobs actually came on the boards and confirmed my opinion as pretty much fact. TSR had warehouses full of unsold 2e stuff they couldn't push, and they ate a ton of product because of a very liberal buy back (from vendors and distributors) policy. You confuse not knowing the story with thinking what I said is an opinion. What I said is what happened. Your opinion otherwise is irrelevant.

houstonderek wrote:

So, you can ignore what really happened and try 20/20 hindsight speculation all you want (which is funny, because it's hard to change what really happened to fit your narrative and make the 4e change and customer exodus seem less than it was, or make the 2e and 3e changes more dramatic than they were).

memorax wrote:

Pot calling the kettle black much. Unlike yourself who post something and expects it to be accepted as pure fact I have alay said it's been my opioion. Fans being alienated between editions happen all the time. Just because you don't agree with it or want to acknopwledge it does not mean it does not exist. And what you think the fans of 2E accpeted 3E without saying anything. If anyone who insists on fitting things into a narrative it;s yours. I can say something does not exist too if I disagree with it. If your not interested in hearing anything or from anyone that disagrees with your opinion why are you even posting on this or any other forum. You don't get to demand the type of feedback you get on this forum or any other.

Again, I have the advantage of actually knowing what happened. I never said fans weren't alienated. I said that some editions succeeded and some failed in spite of or because of fan alienation. 4e didn't sell what WotC needed it to, that is the only reason they'd come out with a new edition so quickly. 2e sold ok, but they printed way too much product and bought back unsold stock from distributors and it sunk TSR. This is a fact, not an opinion. That you are unfamiliar with the facts and dismiss those that do not fit what you want the truth to be is irrelevant.

houstonderek wrote:

And, again, um, there is no OGL to save 4e fans like there was for 3e fans, so there will be no division of the fan base for new product.

memorax wrote:

Right so all those 4E fans who bought the 4E books are going to be happy with a new edition. Ogl or not not every one is happy with a new edition. I'm sure your going to say who cares about them. I don't think you realize or want to realize that you and your views don'r represent the entire market or fanabse.

The 4e fan base will do what the 3.5 fanbase did. Some will switch, some won't. The difference is there is little to no chance of some 3pp stepping up and producing new product for them. No Paizo on the horizon. So, they'll be like people who play 1e, 2e and 3.5. Well, the only difference is people who play older editions have companies making new product under the OGL, whether they be OSR boutique publishers or Paizo (a little secret, Pathfinder is just 3.5 with houserules, their adventures are usable with 3x with little conversion work needed). I don't think anyone will dare do that on any scale because of the restrictive nature of the GSL.

However, WotC appears to be targeting people who never jumped to 4e. That is, the people playing OD&D, AD&D and 3.5/Pathfinder. That's a pretty big slice of the RPG market.

houstonderek wrote:

And, you know, who cares about 3.5 players that didn't switch to Pathfinder? They're irrelevant to the discussion.

memorax wrote:

Interesting lets discount a segment of the fanbase because they don't fit into how I want to view things argument. I'm not even sure you care that you just insulted your fellow famers.

Um, they are irrelevant. Pathfinder, because of their business model and expectations, didn't need every 3.5 player to convert. Paizo exceeded their sales expectations, so enough converted to make them successful. WotC DID need those players to convert (and a lot of the people who eventually chose Pathfinder), they didn't, and 4e did not meet expectations, which, in business terms, makes 4e a failure. Which is why they started on 5e in 2010. A mere two years after 4e was released. Not a good sign that, after the initial curiosity sales, enough people were buying very near the beginning of the run to make 4e seem like a good idea to continue. I'm guessing Essentials didn't come close to meeting expectations either.

houstonderek wrote:

If 4e were a game more people wanted there would have never been a Pathfinder.

houstonderek wrote:

You really like making broad claims. Really PF would not have existed if more people wanted 4E. Last time I checked we had a whole bunch of other rpgs that people play beyond PF.

There are. But, were 4e a rousing success, who knows what path Paizo would have taken? Had they not had a huge potion of their fanbase saying they'll never adopt to 4e, they might not have taken a chance on publishing a $50 rule book. A company doesn't just make a major decision to bring out a new line of products unless they have a decent idea they'll be able to sell enough units to pay the bills and make a profit.

momorax, keep thinking the change to 2e and the change to 3e were in any way as cataclysmic as the change to 4e. TSR didn't die because they revised AD&D, they died because they glutted the market with crap product. Players didn't have any option for new product with the 2e change and the 3x change. Players had an option after the 4e change. And about half the base exercised that option. I hated 2e, seriously, but it had zero impact on TSR.

So, you can ignore what really happened and try 20/20 hindsight speculation all you want (which is funny, because it's hard to change what really happened to fit your narrative and make the 4e change and customer exodus seem less than it was, or make the 2e and 3e changes more dramatic than they were).

And, again, um, there is no OGL to save 4e fans like there was for 3e fans, so there will be no division of the fan base for new product. And, you know, who cares about 3.5 players that didn't switch to Pathfinder? They're irrelevant to the discussion, and, if enough of them exist, they make Pathfinder's success that much more impressive. And, again, PF does exist, so that 20/20 hindsight speculation is completely irrelevant. It's like "what if Lincoln fell off a horse when he was a kid" speculation. Ultimately meaningless in the face of actual history. If 4e were a game more people wanted there would have never been a Pathfinder. It works both ways. the reality is, for the first time, the new edition didn't keep enough people and attract enough new people to survive. Why that happened, or how "wrong" the opinions are of the people who didn't jump on board are, is irrelevant. The edition failed where it counted, in the marketplace.

No edition did so as decisively as 4e did. 2e didn't sell half as well as 1e, 3e sold better than 2e (sales weren't 2e's problem, the edition itself spitting the base into Ravenloft players, Dark sun players, Forgotten Realms players, Planescape players, and the bean counters at TSR thinking gamers would buy everything like they did for 1e - and producing everything like all players would buy all the settings - was the problem).

4e was a huge miscalculation of what most gamers wanted. Hence Pathfinder's success. Again, I'm guessing they sold about equally, with 4e having the edge for the first year or so (after PF was released, not the first year of D&D 4e). But, and again, those numbers for Paizo are far above expectiations. For WotC they're well below.

And, sour grapes? I don't really care about 4e or WotC. They lost me when they pulled the older edition PDFs, not with 4e. I got more than I paid for the 4e core (PHB 1, DMG 1 and MM 1), so I didn't lose money on the deal. 4e is ok, I actually played a little at OwlCon and watched some games being played.

I've just been watching this stuff since '79, and this is the craziest thing I've seen in that time. WotC didn't screw up as badly as Lorraine Williams did at TSR, but they did screw up.

Kagehiro wrote:

I think a large part of the issue for old hat gamers that has disconnected them from the system is the fact that the rules have been getting more concrete with each edition. In the early days, you got a general idea of how something should work and then a paragraph that basically said, "use your imagination and fill in the blanks - you're the DM and this is your world." The loss of that freedom does rub some people the wrong way. Hell, that is pretty much Gygax's view on 3rd edition (don't get much older-hat/greybeardier than that).

That sums up my views on pre-d20 vs 3.X pretty well. Which is the main reason it amuses me so much to see people who prefer 3.X react with shock and horror that 4E could POSSIBLY change the game in such large ways. Here's a note, fanboys: The edition that gives you such a stiffy did the exact same thing to the game in 2000.

Actually, 3x brought back a few sacred cows 2e dismissed in its original core, and actually called demon and devils, I don't know, demons and devils. Yep, it's mechanically different from 1e/2e in a lot of ways, but none of the changes were as dramatic as the ones in 4e were.

And, guess what? A lot of people complained about 3x back then just as people did with 4e this time. The difference? 3x actually bought back a bunch of players to buying books. Something about the edition brought people back into the fold, so, apparently, a lot of people felt, in spite of the changes, that 3x "felt" like D&D.

4e didn't accomplish that for enough players, and WotC obviously do not think it is doing well enough for them to continue producing it. Seriously, you can make that comparison all day, but it doesn't hold water. It doesn't matter what mechanics were changed, it matters that customers that spend money think it "feels" right.

And to you, 4e fan boy, no, the edition that gives us a stiffy didn't do the exact same thing in 2000, because the game put out in 2000 was a success and brought a lot of people back in to buying books (or even back into the hobby, in my case - I hadn't played in years when 3x came out).

The (according to 4e fan boys) 4th edition did not. It split the base and it failed to meet expectations. Sour grapes aren't going to change that.

Honestly, these rules are designed with bringing a bit of the deadliness of earlier editions back into the game. Now, Kirth isn't as into resource management as I am when I run a game, so a lot of that is handwaved, but he does put the pedal to the metal when it comes to tactics and whatnot, so being reckless will get you dead.

houstonderek wrote:

They need us back, we don't need them, so they're going to pander. That's how life works. Deal with it.

They are pandering to for better or worse. Does that mean that I should bend over backwards and smile and not say something. No. If I disagree with something they impement in 5E I will voice it. That's like saying that 3.5 fans should have said nothing during the PF playtest because they were pandering to fans of 3.5. Fortunately from the looks of it most people ignored that. I may not have a choice of what gets put or not in 5E for the most part I sure as hell will let them know of what I like and don't like of what they will include in it. As long as I'm civil and polite no one will remove my right to do so. No one and I mean no one here or anywhere is going to tell me otherwise. One of the few things about me that is not up for debate absoluterly non-negotiable.

You should absolutely let them know what you want. I agree. But, the general theme here seems to be that WotC is making a mistake pandering to the fans they lost, when, in reality, the mistake they made was alienating them in the first place. This really isn't arguable, their numbers are forcing them to change.

I would like to point something out to the 4e fans. Very few people NOT in the 4e fold are clamoring for WotC to do anything. We weren't asking for 5e, we may have speculated on how long it would take WotC to scrap 4e and change editions, but we weren't asking WotC to do anything. They are pandering to US. We moved on. We play Pathfinder. We have a game that feels the way we want it to, has enough of the sacred cows we like to play like the D&D we know. We don't need 5e.

WotC seems to think 5e needs us, however. You want to complain about them taking a "step back", go complain to them. We're telling you why we don't play 4e. It doesn't matter if you accept our opinions, the fact is, your stridency and demands for "logical" opinions isn't going to sell one book for WotC. Not enough people liked/bought 4e for WotC to continue making it. It was the most divisive edition, by far, ever made. Our hobby is smaller than it was in the '80s (sorry, it's true, people who have actually seen the sales numbers from WotC 3x and TSR 1e have spoken, on these boards, on the matter), so dividing the base basically in half had to be devastating.

They need us back, we don't need them, so they're going to pander. That's how life works. Deal with it.

Not really, I don't care about 4e either way.

Diffan, my thing is, I don't mind 4e. It's an ok game. It says D&D on the cover and was published by the people who own the IP, so it's D&D. I think it doesn't play like a fantasy game I'm accustomed to, I prefer 1e and play 3x/KF because that's what the people I want to game with are playing. But we play it more or less 1e style, with a DM who grew up in the same region and started playing at about the same time so it feels right to me. My primary deal with 4e is the minis. We prefer to play without, and mechanically 4e doesn't lend itself to that type of play. It's a little too positional for my tastes. Yes, I understand 3x isn't much better in that regard, but we can get full enjoyment by handwaving a bunch of stuff and just letting Kirth let us know where AoOs will occur and what areas are effected by spells. But an integral part of the 4e combat engine revolves around battle grid positioning, moving opponents to more advantageous attack angles, and stuff like that, and it's a pita to keep track of without minis.

Personally, I think the 4e engine would make an amazing superheroes game. Better than M&M I think. The cinematic action and powers paradigm lend itself well to that sort of thing, I think.

Scott and I have gotten along fairly well most of this time. I think I was reasonable during the "edition wars", because, honestly, who cares? It's a collection of books people use to make up stories. It isn't world hunger or going to prison or anything. Not that important. But, dude, 4e fans are so defensive that even when people genuinely ask a question, if it even sniffs of a previous post being critical of 4e, they'd go into attack mode. And, after the reaction non-converters to 4e got in places like the WotC boards, ENWorld and other boards, and how hostile those places were, this was the only refuge. Even P&PG got weird, and, to me, that is the friendliest place I've ever been on line. And it drove me to here, where I didn't have to hear it.

Paizo, in the middle of all this, decided to have a 4e forum here, because a) they're cool like that, and b) people like Scott were doing some really cool conversions of APs to 4e and otherwise adding to the breadth of the experience these boards have to offer. And, like you alluded to, the boards here left that corner of the universe in peace for the most part, with the occasional flare up. During that time, you couldn't even mention Pathfinder on some other boards without getting absolutely hammered, usually quite viciously, by just about everyone.

And the people here just shrugged and moved on. 95% of the threads about 4e were edition war free, and everyone was happy.

But, you know, we are geeks. We rage over all kinds of crap. And, in spite of the 4e fan's protestations to the contrary, the WotC marketing at the lead up and launch of 4e was deplorable to a segment of their customer base. A significant segment, actually. It was smug, insulting to old school players. and quite arrogant. And they made a lot of promises they couldn't back up. Have they launched the virtual table top yet? So, they left behind quite a bit of ill will in the aftermath. And, in marketing, perception is reality. It doesn't matter what WotC's intent was, the fact is a lot of people perceived the marketing as insulting. And that's all that matters. So, now that WotC is essentially eating crow and admitting they think they made a mistake, the segment they alienated is rejoicing. And some of them are pretty happy WotC has decided to attempt to go back to D&D's roots. Which, by the way, is good news for WotC. Positive interest. Some won't go back, but some never did after 2e, and some never moved to 3e. Big deal.

And, so now, the 4e folks are starting to understand a bit of how the 3e folks felt in '08. And guess what? I don't think they like it.

And, I'm disappointed because Scott is being obtuse and I think he feels a little stung because some of the nay sayers actually did hit exactly what was going on behind the curtain on the head. I mean, they've been planning this from '10, apparently? 4e didn't do what they planned on it doing. Probably half as well, if I had to guess, based on the relative numbers of PF/4e players (purely anecdotal and speculative). Which is awesome by RPG standards, but it isn't D&D standards.

So, having watched his body of work, I feel his recent posts have been quite condescending and snide. And I have no problem calling him out on it.

Diffan, we've been dealing with Scott's act for years here. He has always been completely dismissively rude towards anyone who may have thought WotC wasn't doing as well as their facade presented itself, persistently "corrected" anyone who had a negative thing to say about 4e, and generally made himself a punch line. And he was wrong about almost everything, it turns out. The schadenfreude some people here are feeling after three years of him acting like 4e is his kid and he hates people picking on her is very powerful.

houstonderek wrote:

Honestly, I do forget that a lot of people don't play the way Kirth, TOZ and our group does. Yeah, some of the "fiddly" parts are more or less glossed over.

Sounds like an amazing game. :)

It is. Most fun I've had since my old early '90s "strippers and dealers" 1e game. The players, not the campaign...

"I just do" does cut it. Are you f+$*ing SERIOUS? Who in the hell are you that people have to explain their preferences to you? And I bet you don't even see how amazingly arrogant that statement is.

Digitalelf wrote:

Scott Betts wrote:

People always have a reason for preference.

And people have stated that they have played other systems, with different styles of magic (and enjoyed playing them), and yet they always come back to D&D with Vancian Casting because it offers something different than the others that they happen to prefer...

Do you believe that it follows that the reason they return to D&D every time must be because of how great they think its magic system is?

No, it's RPG comfort food. It may not be the best, but it definitely hits a certain spot. It's the total package, not just the magic system. Though that is part of it.

houstonderek wrote:

That may be one of the most egotistical, inane statements I've ever heard. No, it's impossible that someone genuinely likes Vancian casting, it's just kneejerk nostalgia.

Wow, talk about being a jerk...

I genuinely like Vancian casting.

But I don't prefer it.

Do you understand the difference? It is non-trivial.

It might also help to take a step back and make an effort to understand what you are arguing against, instead of leaping to calling someone a jerk.

What you are arguing is that people who prefer it are somehow flawed. It's a common rhetorical device of yours. Maybe you have no self awareness and have no idea how you come off, but you are very condescending, very dismissive, and quite rude at times. Many things you accused me of being earlier. Difference is, I own who I am. I am completely aware of when I'm being an ass, or when I'm genuinely debating.

The jerk statement is a "body of work lately" observation. You seem genuinely unsettled that much of what people have predicted over the last few years, and you vigorously denied/defended/dismissed as anecdotal observation has apparently, at least to the people who matter in this (Hasbro/WotC), come to pass.

4e didn't live up to expectations. It may be a decent game, but it isn't what enough people to keep WotC supporting it want. A big part of that is they changed too many assumptions about what people have come to expect over the years from a game labelled "D&D". Yeah, 2e changed stuff. 3x changed stuff. But they didn't change enough for a majority of people to stop playing them and go elsewhere. 4e did. WotC knows it, even if you're still in denial. They're in it to make money. Pathfinder is in it to make money. The difference is, WotC sold "x" units, but they're attached to a huge corp, and "x" isn't good enough. Paizo sold "y" units, but they're a small, privately owned company, and "y" far exceeded their expectations. And is probably close to "x", if not nosing ahead. So, WotC needs a bigger number for "x". And 4e fans aren't going to get them there. They need a percentage of Paizo's "y" to buy in and like 5e. So they're going to change the game to something closer to the older ideas of what D&D is.

Guess what? This is a nerd/geek hobby. Nerds and geeks spend an insane amount of time arguing stupid s!@@ like "Han Shot First" and the like. Emotions run hot over the most trivial crap in our hobby. And emotions affect spending habits. WotC pissed off too many people by killing their sacred cows, and 4e suffered. They now want to try and repair that damage. Which means making a bunch of people who like a game different than the one you like happy. It's business. WotC lost too much of it, and they want it back. You, over the years, have said they know the numbers and we don't. Yep. 100% true. Apparently those numbers weren't very good as far as they were concerned.

That may be one of the most egotistical, inane statements I've ever heard. No, it's impossible that someone genuinely likes Vancian casting, it's just kneejerk nostalgia.

Wow, talk about being a jerk...

aeglos wrote:

happy birthday lynora

+1

+2 :-) Happy Birthday!

houstonderek wrote:

memorax wrote:

Notice he never mentions getting any feedback.

I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that he has the internet. I'm fairly certain he's aware of a company called Paizo. And a magazine called Kobold Quarterly.

Now, both the Paizo crew and Wolfgang Baur get a ton of open forum feedback (as does WotC before their moderators delete the posts that don't completely caress 4e's nether parts with their lips) from a metric assload of gamers. A lot of that feedback is critical of how 4e handles some things. Unless Monte is hermetically sealed in a jar on Mearls' desk and can't access the web, I think he has plenty of feedback to base his position on.

Not to mention facebook where he takes the time to post and answer feedback.

Yeah, didn't want to pull that card. But he does respond to questions and is pretty cool about chatting on his wall with people about stuff. So, again, it isn't like he's sealed away from the world.

Cat Power does Somebody(?)

I was under the impression that Jukebox was an all-covers album, but I have no idea who does +80% of these songs. As a hardcore rock nerd with a taste for the pedantic, I gotta say, I'm f$~@ing impressed.

Anyway, that obviously leads to: Aretha does Bacharach.

Please excuse me while I cry.

She has an album called "The Covers Record" that is all covers of more recognizable music. Jukebox is all covers except for two tracks, but it's all old country, gospel and divas (there's a Billie Holiday cover, for one). So, a bit more obscure if you're more into rock and relatively newer stuff.

houstonderek wrote:

And still just adjudicated by a single roll. I have a bunch of "if x, then y" on any of my character sheets, so, except for really out there modifiers, for me, it's still just "roll, compare to CMD".

Derek, you know we love you, but I'm going to have to side with Scott on this one. There are just far too many situational modifiers and fiddly bits to commit to memory. I'm sure the system works fine if most of those are glossed over, but that isn't following the RAW.

Honestly, I do forget that a lot of people don't play the way Kirth, TOZ and our group does. Yeah, some of the "fiddly" parts are more or less glossed over.

Mea culpa.

Notice he never mentions getting any feedback.

I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that he has the internet. I'm fairly certain he's aware of a company called Paizo. And a magazine called Kobold Quarterly.

Now, both the Paizo crew and Wolfgang Baur get a ton of open forum feedback (as does WotC before their moderators delete the posts that don't completely caress 4e's nether parts with their lips) from a metric assload of gamers. A lot of that feedback is critical of how 4e handles some things. Unless Monte is hermetically sealed in a jar on Mearls' desk and can't access the web, I think he has plenty of feedback to base his position on.

Pathfinder is 3.5 with houserules.

Absolutely correct. And it is also an indicator that WotC's revision of AD&D still had a lot of life in it, and a lot of people wanted to keep playing it. WotC (or, more likely, someone from the accounting or legal department at Hasbro) wanted to get out from under the OGL, and needed to change the game significantly to make it incompatible with earlier editions. Unfortunately, they changed the game too much for at least half the fan base, and, because of the OGL, that half had a place to go to get their fix and new product.

And that stung.

And still just adjudicated by a single roll. I have a bunch of "if x, then y" on any of my character sheets, so, except for really out there modifiers, for me, it's still just "roll, compare to CMD".

Damn, ninja'd by Aardvark...

I don't consider 3x AD&D. The last game I consider AD&D is 1e (the last game I consider D&D is Moldvay/Cook Basic/Expert). 2e doesn't exist for me (much like the Star Wars prequels and the Matrix sequels). 3 was just some game I liked to play that had D&D on the cover (so, you know, it's technically D&D), but I always considered it WotCD&D: We Hate Fighters edition.

As to the edition run, I make little distinction between 3.0 and 3.5. The changes were minor enough that they didn't matter, really. They weren't even as dramatic as the changes to 2e through its run. We don't consider 2e with skills and powers a separate edition, after all.

"My" argument that 4e isn't D&D doesn't exist. F#+#ing thing says "D&D" on the cover, it would be silly of me to say it wasn't D&D.

Those arguments that make you laugh are funny to you, but they're apparently not very funny to WotC. They seem to be taking it quite seriously, actually.

Ninja;d by everyone, apparently. Point is, there are a small handful of modifiers, nothing complicated, and all adjudicated by a single die roll.

Right, like I said it's not making the grapple, it's the adjudicating. Like what happens when I'm grappled? What about other grapplers? What can I do or not do while grappled? Those should be easy off the top of your head too right? Because it's not complex?

You can attempt to break the grapple, reverse the grapple, possibly cast a spell or attack with a light one handed weapon. Spell casting would be subject to a concentration check, I suppose.

If you're the grappler, you can move your opponent, attack, or pin. If the opponent is pinned or knocked out, you can tie them up.

Ok, you have a thing called a CMB. Combat Maneuver Bonus. It is your Base Attack plus your Strength mod (and size mod, if applicable). Your opponent has a thing called a CMD, combat maneuver defense. It is ten plus your BAB, STR mod and DEX mod (and size mod, if applicable). Roll a d20 and add CMB. If it's higher than the opponent's CMD you succeed. That's it. End of story.

To maintain a grapple, you make the same check every round.

To break a grapple, you roll your CMB or Escape Artist against the grappler's CMD.

Wow. so complex. I didn't even have to look it up.