vance's page

Seriously? Do you have any more info on this, mayhaps links even? (not being argumentative, just extremely curious as to whether they've already started these)

Nothing I can link, unfortuntely. :( To be honest, I can't really fully vouch that the people who claimed they recieved them actually did - or if they got a 'friendly', or what's going on.

Pretty much the whole industry is mental right now.

Edit: You know what, I'm sorry. Without being able to cite, that's little more than rumor-mongering, and I shouldn't do that. I didn't think too much of it when I made the statement out-of-hand, but that would be something a lot more serious in retrospect.

David Marks wrote:

:O You mean there are people trying to be productive? On the internet? They must be stopped! :P

The internet is not a toy. It's a REALLY AWESOME toy.

I thought it was an enormous database of naked women's bottoms?

But, more seriously, the reason I wanted to settle the point is so that the discussion could move PAST it. Since it's pretty solidly confirmed, the discussion could be more productive by pointing out the merits and limitations of the choice, and what can be done from here on out.

Admittedly, the GSL makes expansion rather difficult, but.. there ya go.

D&D is a trademark the same than Batman, Spider-Man or Donald Trump's "You are fired" so don't complaint on this 4th edition D&D is another system with the only difference that the same than its predecessor is the most popular, worldwide known and the most supported of the industry.

Yeah, so shut up, everyone. In fact, screw this... no more discussion allowed on ANYTHING, from now on! :P

Just curious, Patricio, have you ever heard of something called 'Coca Cola'? Maybe you should look up its history.

Lensman wrote:

All of them? Even those from the splat books?

They can't - those materials aren't available under the OGL.

Well, the WOTC version isn't...

And if you're going to tell me that Wotc owns the concept of 'half-demon' PCs, Hellboy would like a word with you.

I already touched on the 'enemy' mentality. And, yes, sadly, it does seem like WotC itself is encouraging it in many ways. I can't really see any other explanation for the amount of sheer virtiol they show for all other editions of D&D...

No GOOD marketer says "Our new chicken sandwhich has more flavor. God, you were STUPID and TASTELESS if you liked our OLD ones. Idiots. Eat this so your life don't suck."

The main reason , of course, is the implication when the NEXT product comes out...

You can hear it in my accent when I talk

I'm a Taldoran in Drenchport

Wow... Sting reference, obfuscated.

Yes, and it means that post count spammers will be hunted down by the Hounds of Tindalos.

Yet that would be an amusing spectable.

But as it is, once I mentally decided it was really a different game and just try to enjoy it on its own terms, I started having a lot of fun.

Personally, I would gladly run 4E on those days that I just want to 'kill some goblins', though I might lean a little more to Descent in that regard. But 4E doesn't work for me in a more.. social-oriented campaign.

And, of course, anything that requires new (or expanded) mechanics at this point are completely right out.

I don't think that particular point is debatable. What is debatable is whether it was a bad idea or whether it was just a cheap attempt to copy MMOs. I think it was an attempt to make a good game and look around for good ideas.

THANK you. I think that a lot of people won't cede the point because, deep down, they don't like the implication. But, as I said elsehwere, WoW alone is outselling the entire PNP hobby by a couple of orders of magnitude - of COURSE you should look at what they're doing right.

Doesn't mean that you should do it directly, though, since you're crossing mediums. Personally, I think 4E did it a little too much, primarily on focusing so heavily on a class's role in a combat situation alone, and downplayed the one major strength of WoW that 4E would have - the ability to do things 'outside the combat grid'.

I don't recall Mearls outright saying it was an attempt at simulation

Well, if he had said "We're taking WOW and putting into PNP forum", Blizzard would have a new acquisition pretty quickly, wouldn't they? But, more seriously, yes, it's been made clear all along that this move was an effort to bring D&D towards the success of MMOs, and that the setting rewrites and rule rewrites were an effort in that direction.

Now that it's been more blatantly stated by the lead designer, is this really a debate point? Shouldn't it be taken as wrote?

Thanks for the attack. I appreciate the insult. How about next time trying to actually explain what "intellectual dishonesty" I have perpetrated and perhaps I may be able to respond in a more meaningful manner.

And you just did it again. I said 'games get very same, encounters tend to be repetitive'.. to which you said 'no'. And NOW you've changed your answer to 'Yeah, but SO?!' and still want to debate the point.

"Intellectual dishonesty" is not a 'valid point of view', it's nothing but a politician's way of lying in order to make it APPEAR like he's won an argument he's lost.

You fool! Now no one can use a regular polyhedron to choose a page to read at random! :P

Sure, but you just need nine more pages...

*why did I suggest this?*

The MMO influence is there _big time_ just like the D&D influence is a huge part of every MMO. What I find to be problematic is the notion that 4e is an attempt to simulate WoW simply because it has been influenced by some of WoWs more successful features.

Despite Mike Mearls outright saying it? Despite it being outright stated as the primary reason for setting rewrites?

I think you mean a loss of "character creation options," not "play options." This new edition is orders of magnitude more versatile when you play than 3.5. In fact, that was the point.

This, simply, just isn't true. It's easy to say, mind you, but even the spell option differences ALONE should prove to you that this isn't true. Hell, Mike Mearls admitted that play options were cut because they didn't work yet.

If the designer of the game says it, I'm likely to believe him. I know, I'm wacky that way.

The rules don't read well, and I think that's where some of the perceived problems come from. They weren't meant to be read, they were meant to be played.

Then it was pretty flippin' stupid of them to put it in book form, wasn't it?

In 25 years of playing D&D, I saw exactly zero gnome PCs. I don't know what the uproar is about them.

I saw plenty of them, actually, but largely in campaigns not explicitly about sacking dungeons all the time. They worked a lot better in more urban, social campaigns. (One look at a Gnome's stats and write-up, and you'll see why this is so obviously true).

Besides, you're now arguing your aesthetics, which is a pointless argument anyway. You may like the changes better, of course, which is your right. But to say that your preference somehow invalidates facts (particularly ones outright confirmed by the games' designers), is part of that intellectual dishonesty which irks me.

Q.E.D.

plays like a roleplaying game...but not like WoW. Isn't WoW an MMO-RolePlayingGame?

The point is moot, though. Mike Mearls, while not saying it very plainly, does insinuate that 4E was trying to make things more simplistic, like many MMOs.

Doesn't matter.. we'll just see the goal-posts in the 'debate' shift (and, indeed, already have), rather than a tacit admission that 4E was deliberately designed to be a PNP equivalent of WoW's play style.

Ah, but you are saying "here are all these things I could do in 3E that I CAN'T do in 4E". My response is, "sure, but here are things you can do in 4E that you CAN'T do in 3E". In both cases, the addition of splat books will cover the extra options we're talking about.

Thing is, I can't think of anything of substance that 4E has in it's trio than 3.5 had. Yeah, there are Tieflings now, etc, but they came at a loss of the Gnome (a 25 year old staple). The net result is that 4E's trio has a loss of play options, in a variety of ways, when compared to 3.5. It's less value for more money.

I've said in other threads that every edition changes what is involved in the inital release.

The only other game I can think of that was this radical of departure between versions, in so many aspects, is Boot Hill. Even V:TM didn't go quite this far with their new game, and certainly didn't do it by telling anyone who played the 'old version' that they were stupid for doing so.

Classes/races/rules get added and dropped, and invariably some are unhappy with the changes. Also invariably, what you missed will eventually be updated to the new edition, either via fans or through actual book releases.

Maybe, but since I've personally ALREADY run into the GSL roadblock, I wouldn't count on too much of that. And, waiting 9 months for material that MAY or MAY NOT reflect stuff that was once 'part of the main game' isn't going to be acceptable to a lot of players.

But, at the end of the day, it's a point of fact that there is less material in the 4E trio than there was in the 3.5 trio. How much you value the material in either, of course, is subjective.

You're not talking about things 4E can't do, just things it doesn't do yet.

No, I'm comparing the 4E 'big trio' with the 3.5 'big trio' only. None of my examples and points came from any other books, as that would be dishonest of me to do so.

But saying "But it could come out later" in "Complete book of things not in 4E PHB" does not invalidate my point, and indeed points to the intellectual dishonesty I ascribed above.

PS: You seem rather antagonistic, and perhaps a bit emotional friend. Go take a walk outside, get some fresh air. Maybe whistle with some blue birds. It's bad for your health to be too upset. ;)

It's simple. I don't mind 4E fans, I don't mind those who enjoy the game. I do mind the attacks and pathetic attempts at 'counter-proof' (IE, lying and intellectual dishonesty) whenever someone discusses flaws with 4E.

I resent that some fanbois feel it's okay to lie and mislead about their franchise in an effort to 'win', while simultaneously demanding that people who express concerns be 'fair and open'.

And.. I'm not angry really, just jaded and cynical. 4E's commerical handling at this point really screwed me over. :P

It is sad, but must I point out the numerous rabid posters who consider WotC the enemy? This thread could be a case study of it.

Possibly, but I see far more of 'well, screw you TOO' coming out of the 'WotC is the enemy camp'. In other words, it's not just coming out of the blue.

There's a feeling of betrayal that's pretty sharp there - something not aided with very vocal, very common, and very hateful comments that certain WotC staff-members have said about 'old-edition gamers', the D&D lineage, and even Paizo - in supposedly professional fashion.

And, of coure, the very strict and oppresive GSL, along with the first new wave of C&D already starting. It's as if the Lorainne has returned. ;)

The saying goes "you're not paranoid if they're really out to get you." Who "they" are depends on what side of the fence you're peering over. ;)

In my case? Both and neither, simulataneously. :)

This, this is what I was talking about.

Yes, there is a lot missing in 4E when compared to 3.5, but it may not be immediately obvious, and a lot of it is mechanical. There's just an insane amount of things that you CANNOT DO in 4E compared to 3.5 - such as summoning, nature-based spells, entire genres of play are rendered IMPOSSIBLE because the mechanica cannot handle them.

"Nothing is really missing."

How about spells with durations, such as weather control? How about ANY of a druid's powers? You can't even do the Authurian legends now, because the mechanics won't allow for so much, much LESS the old Lord of the Rings standy.

Fluff, in particular, seriously suffers in 4E. Are you honestly going to sith there tell me that the racial writeups for 3.5 give LESS or the SAME detail than those in 4E?

How about classes? The fluff for classes was much more in depth than in 4E, where they're reduced to very little more than their power list and initial ability list.. with a smidgeon of 'how to play this class IN COMBAT' given.

Give me a break.

yessirree Bob..this is where the failing in logic among the WotC folks and supporters lies....They underestimate the 'power' we long time DM's have in the power of persuasion ;)

I think it's more telling, and perhaps a little worrying, that a number of 4E fanbois are now considering Paizo the 'enemy'. There's a level of 'fan loyalty' to 4E that I don't remember seeing in the gaming hobby before - and it's outright hateful.

Enough to make me a jaded cynic, it is.

The Watery Grave is probably too powerful at that level. It can be instant death in two rounds. (Remember, saves are a LOT weaker in 4E than in 3E).

Can't use the 'Fey Step' write up as it is. GSL thing, so it may not apply depending on what you want to do with it.

Force Pulse is also pretty high, even for a 1/6 recharge. Might want to either reduce the damage, or make it a 'per encounter' power. (Since that's likely about as often as it will come up.)

Otherwise, not bad. :)

I have run test scenarios at 15, 25, and 30 just to see how things played out. All of the classes still played in their roles - defender, controller, striker, leader. I simply do not se any increase in homogeneity at higher levels.

While trying to minimize the snark as much as possible, I don't think you would ever find any fault with anything about 4E, no matter how blatant, how severe, or how damaging that it may be. Certainly, your statements, at best, are no more or less anecdotal to anyone else's.

Personally, I played and run a few 1st to 3rd mini sessions to get a feel for how the game played, and those games VERY QUICKLY went into a 'SOP' for each encounter. It occured to me, very early, why this was. The game REWARDS only one style of play, and did a wonderful job of culling just about everything else out. But, having said that, that was MY experience, and purely anecdotal.

Now, on the one hand, I'm actually very glad that you like the game. On the other, I really can't take your comments on it all that seriously anymore. This isn't due to you being a fan, but the sheer amount of intellectual dishonest you've thrown around about it.

You are saying that Hasbro did not design this edition **at all** to resemble video games and online RPG's in order to appeal to that potential customer base?

Well, you're wrong in one way. Hasbro had nothing to do with the game's design. All the decisions about the game itself were internal to WotC.

Well, fortunately for you they didn't do that.

You know, when both Rich Baker and Mike Mearls admitted that that's what they were shooting for - trying to claim otherwise is just intellectual dishonesty. It's not as if using the WoW model is inherently a bad thing, after all... WoW's kicking the snot out of the ENTIRE PNP hobby, after all.

To be honest vance, I've only seen that complaint given by those who already dislike 4E. Have you actually seen anyone who has played a good deal of 4E with this complaint?

Several, yes. A couple at the WotC chat room, and a few in person. They still LOVE it, but they did comment that their encounters were all playing out exactly the same, every time.

Of course there may be some that are very similar but from role to role you will find that the total package of stats, feats, powers, etc. make for very varied and unique classes.

Actuall, I think that the higher level you go, the more you play, the MORE alike that the classes seem to be. This has been a common complaint of the '4E addict', the realization that their entire games get more and more samey as they go.

Post some up vance. I'd wondered if there was any power duplication, but I just don't have the free time to really read through and examine it that closely. If you've seen some power duplication let us know, I'd be interested to see! :)

Well, since I want to avoid being SUED these days... :)

Honestly, though, if you look at the Warlord and Fighter, you'll see a LOT of overlap in the early levels. Paladins largely duplicate Warlord powers but swap the key stat involved. The Wizard swaps out (W) for d6 most of the time.

Uh, no. The classes are drastically different. A fighter does not have the same powers as a wizard who does not have the same powers as a rogue. Even the individual classes that share the same role play very differently. D&D is still very much a class based game.

Yeah, I'm calling BS on this one, Crosswired. Numerous powers are identical across the classes, aside from flavor-texted and possibly the damage type.

Yeah... please stop that. I believe that 'post count spamming' is against the CoC here anyway.

Actually, I think this points out 4E's biggest flaw in that all the classes are very much alike, regardless of the flavor of each class. Changing fluff text to turn a Ranger into a Monk is stupid... yet that's pretty much the main differences between ALL the classes now.

And that's just it. For me, the 'mundane daily powers' are just one more thing that makes 4E very hard for me to use any anything BUT a dungeon-crawling game. If these 'bits of breaking' were rare, and had little effect overall, it wouldn't have been a big deal and you could easily ignore one or two of them, as we've all done since 1973.

But this time out there's so many, and so prevalent, it's just harder and harder to rationalize. So the narrative (not neccessarily the 'simulation') starts to break down as you're constantly forced to break it or rationalize it, to make 'in game' sense of the mechanics.

They announced it was up for testing as a preview.. but not that it was released, which is a pretty big difference. :)

Maybe in a month or 2. See you all then.

PS:They should really rename this forum to "4E hate bin: All anti-4e extremist welcome"

PS2: or maybe I should just go into 3E forums and start a "Why 3E sucks" thread.

I think that the bigger problem is that you cannot say "I dislike this in 4E" without automatically being branded a 'hater'. As if stating your opinion now makes it alright for 'fans' to personally harass and attack you.

D&D has always skirted between a role-playing game and a skirmish game. I feel that this rule, really, (and several rules which were mechnanically streamlined but break narrative credibility - hence the 'dumbing down'), pushes the game into the 'skmirish' side. And, if that's how you play (and most D&D players -do- play this way), then fine... enjoy it. Knock yourself out.

But please don't pretend that these new rules are 'all about the narrative' and have this tremendous hidden role-playing depth and so on... because Mike Mearls doesn't even agree with you on that point.

Why would you assume these abilities are "mundane"? I don't.

Because the Player's Handbook explicitly says they are? More than that, they also explicitly state that the abilties are trained maneuvers, which would make them 'mundane' ('compared to magical')?

That's always been a pet peeve of mine for people who complain about Fighters and Rogues. "They're so boring compared to wizards and can't do all these magical abilities." ... well, duh, they're not magical. They do things in a more mundane way. That's what they are. Fighters hit things with sticks and soak up punishment. Rogues sneak around and steal stuff.

If you want the guy that has all the magic at his disposal, the Wizards' training room is right down the hall.

Lastly, enough. You really think I'm going to be impressed at vulgarity thrown my way? Is that the BEST way you can construct your argument? You do realize that you're effectively proving the points that most of the anti-4E crowd makes about 4E players, right?

I think that's a bogus response to my comment.

You're entitled to your opinion. But you're not entitled to your own facts. The complaint here isn't about magical abilities, which have their own rules in which you rationalize - but mundane abilities that - for no real reason - work in a completely arbitrary way.

If your whole defense is 'yeah, well, other things that are completely different work like this, and you should shut up 'cause 4E is the roxxors and quit making fun of my campaign', then I'm afraid you're not getting sympathy. Offended? tough. That's not how I phrased my response.

You can always role-play above and beyond the rules, and anyone who's played Dungeons and Dragons has been doing that since the first photocopies were given out at Tacticon in the early 1970s.

But when the rules become so abstract and arbitrary that they can break the narrative, which these 'daily' mundane abilities do, then there's a problem with the rules themselves.

You have your opinion, but don't f##%ing dare attack me for considering this a non-issue.

I find it more telling that you considered it an attack.

To be fair, since there's been no news announcement on this aspect of the DDI, and it LOOKS incomplete, it's pretty safe to say that it is. While you can complain that it's extremely late (six months and counting), I couldn't review this as if it were a 'ready for prime time' product.

Yeah. I don't see what the big deal is. Daily powers have been in the game forever... Get over it. Rationalize it. Whatever. It's a game. Play it and have fun.

At which point, then, are you no longer playing a role-playing game, which focuses on the narrative, the campaign, and so on... and instead just playing a skirmish game? Personally, I think 4E finally has laid to rest any hint that D&D was ever a role-playing game, and the sheer absurdity of many of the new rules - as well as the myriad of limitations due to the dumbing down of the rules - lays the proof down very solidly.

As someone else posted, Brian R James is not an employee of Goodman, so we wonder if that's also speculation or if he actually has a source.

That's not really confirmation. In having talked to WotC, they explicitly said that they are absolutely not interested in making seperate GSL deals. Granted, they may have done this BEFORE hand, sure, but if Goodman and WotC actually had a deal going... wouldn't they publicize it a bit?

No, Keith Baker is actually finding ways to fit Eberron into 4e, if you read his blog you would understand this.

And the fact that they have to go in that direction should say something? They're having to rework a setting to fit the rules - which proves a weakness in the rules, nae?

They probably discovered that, like Forgotten Realms, there was a lot they actually COULD NOT DO in Eberron, and have to rewrite the material accordingly.

Really seems odd that that trademark would be allowed.. but, I guess, no one else really uses dungeons as the key focus of their games.

Interestingly, the solicitation text for the DM Campaign Record includes the term "Dungeon Master."

That's because the trademarked 'Dungeon Master' is the animated series character... (not sure why people missed that, it's right there on the trademark search...)

Right. But I guess a better question is how are they allowed to do this? Are they defying the GSL/WotC or do they have their own agreement? And why would there be such hush-hush about it? Wouldn't WotC want to do this and show other 3PPS that its authors can make their own world their own way?

WOTC isn't going to advertise to 3PP that you can quite easily skirt the GSL, and Goodman isn't going to advertise to WOTC HOW they're skirting the GSL before release...

There's not really any new management, is there?

Yes, yes there is. There was a major turnover about two years ago, and much of the creative team for the RPG lines were 'outsourced' rather than 'in house'. Most of what actually remains in house at WotC now are 'suits' of one degree or another, and some project leads.

But, there's a grand total of roughly THREE people in staff left from when WotC took the Dungeons and Dragons brand.

Wow, that's extremely cynical, especially considering the fact that Paizo kinda came out of WOTC.

Only not. Paizo got a boon with Dungeon and Dragon, to be sure. But, yes, I'm am absolutely certain that Paizo wasn't renewed because the new 'powers that be' at WotC considered them, like they consider all other publishers, a threat.

Mark my words on this, and heed it well.

4E may mark a 'new generation' in the game mechanics, but the new management is very much 2nd edition.

You think the designers/authors at wotc killed the paizo deal out of envy? I don't know, but I really, really, really doubt anyone in a creative job makes such decisions.

I think that someone at WotC felt that Paizo was a threat to them, and sought to undercut them.

So..anyone know how Goodman Games is doing this?

Because it's pretty obvious they're not DOING the GSL?

Well, I'm profoundly disturbed that the old and very racist joke of 'Ghetto Elves' that used to haunt some of the gaming scene in the 1980s has now been made official.

Dear Lord...

You mind elaborating? Are you saying that features that aren't in the game aren't in the game 'cause they don't work with the game? That's like complaining about how the newest Ford Focus doesn't have a space for a soft-serve ice cream machine because the car won't support it.

The Forgotten Realms is being gutted because the setting, particularly its use of magic, cannot be modeled with the rules given in 4E. The overwhelming majority of spells, races, and iconic characters are simply impossible in 4E.

I dunno. I think it's telling that the most successful gaming franchise of all time is being utterly gutted for no other reason than that the newest version of the game CANNOT work with it...

George Dubya Bush and George Herbert Walker (?) Bush. But it's easy to miss in the message you quoted. But you're right, it was the elder Bush.

Argh. I just didn't see it. I pity future children in history class.