My feelings about 5E D&D


4th Edition

151 to 200 of 539 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Stefan Hill wrote:


WotC say they got 4e wrong by misjudging the audience and in 5e they won't. Hang on isn't Mike leading the crew for 5e? The same one who ultimately must take responsibility for misjudging the audience in 4e. Er, I should believe 5e will be everything to everyone why again?

4e was not well received initially and people didn't need to stick with it to get the D&D-experience (aka Pathfinder). By making ANY bad comments about 4e WotC are eroding their own good name and undermining consumer confidence that they can successfully produce 5e and make it something the audience want. Because they admit in 4e they didn't know what consumers wanted.

Do you have any comments from them where they say 4E was wrong in some way? Or a mis-step or whatever?

.
I've seen them comment on the fractured fanbase, I havent actually seen them link that to 4E's properties though. (Meaning I think they're doing what you suggest they should). Most of the remarks along the lines of "4E is a failure" are 'deduced' from the fact they're making a new edition "so soon". I find that a little odd, since I'm expecting the next edition to launch in 2013, which seems to be five years after the last edition. Quick, in my opinion, but not overly so.

I'm curious to find whatever facts and data I can, since it's so hard to get anything remotely objective and lots of subjective views on this topic are expressed as objective.

Liberty's Edge

Steve Geddes wrote:


Do you have any comments from them where they say 4E was wrong in some way? Or a mis-step or whatever?

Why yes...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidewalt/2012/01/09/wizards-announce-new-dung eons-and-dragons-an-inside-look-at-the-game/2/

Quote from the article.

“With fourth edition, there was a huge focus on mechanics,” says Mearls. “The story was still there, but a lot of our customers were having trouble getting to it."

In a consumer driven product market admitting that a lot of people didn't get your design for 4e is rather telling.

I liked 4e Essentials, wasn't so fussed on 4e itself, so for me I'm a little sad to see 5e arrive. If it truly will be ALL editions in one, I can see my group having b-arch fights over which rules are in and which are out. I like my rule-sets like real world physics, something I don't have to think about I just 'play in'. Another D&D forum site I found basically said if I wanted to play 1e, 2e, 3e, why won't I just used those systems? They make a reasonable point.

Still, early days.

S.


Stefan Hill wrote:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidewalt/2012/01/09/wizards-announce-ne w-dungeons-and-dragons-an-inside-look-at-the-game/2/

Quote from the article.

“With fourth edition, there was a huge focus on mechanics,” says Mearls. “The story was still there, but a lot of our customers were having trouble getting to it."

In a consumer driven product market admitting that a lot of people didn't get your design for 4e is rather telling.

I liked 4e Essentials, wasn't so fussed on 4e itself, so for me I'm a little sad to see 5e arrive. If it truly will be ALL editions in one, I can see my group having b-arch fights over which rules are in and which are out. I like my rule-sets like real world physics, something I don't have to think about I just 'play in'. Another D&D forum site I found basically said if I wanted to play 1e, 2e, 3e, why won't I just used those systems? They make a reasonable point.

Still, early days.

S.

Cheers. I hadnt seen that article.

.
He seemed pretty positive, although his account sounded less like "being able to play all previous editions" and more like "playing a new game made up of the best bits of previous editions" which suits me better. It does suggest to me that they're not really aiming at poaching players of other editions directly, but rather trying to create a game with wider appeal that 4E (presumably in the hope that some oldtimers will also support and buy new things from them). As a 4E player, I think that's a sound move - an attempt at a dramatic 'gamechanger' is pretty unlikely to succeed, in my view.


Stefan Hill wrote:


Still, early days.

S.

Yes, very early. Just as the 4e designers did not intend to go down a side road that ended up fracturing their fan base, the 5e designers will also have to choose which road to follow when roads diverge.

The idea that they can go both right AND left when they reach certain roads will not survive the first contact with reality.

Liberty's Edge

Steve Geddes wrote:
As a 4E player, I think that's a sound move - an attempt at a dramatic 'gamechanger' is pretty unlikely to succeed, in my view.

I'm with you there. 3e was the game changer, and it worked - ask Paizo and other 3pp.


Stefan Hill wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
As a 4E player, I think that's a sound move - an attempt at a dramatic 'gamechanger' is pretty unlikely to succeed, in my view.
I'm with you there. 3e was the game changer, and it worked - ask Paizo and other 3pp.

Personally, I think both 3rd and 4th were radical changes. I don't think it's going to sit well with the disparate community they're targetting if this is yet another radical shift. I think 'going back to our roots without abandoning what we've learnt' is their best approach.

As I say though, I think long-term they will be better off developing new markets via new players (or lapsed players) rather than trying to target existing fans of other systems.

Liberty's Edge

Steve Geddes wrote:
rather than trying to target existing fans of other systems.

The almost laughable thing is one of the other systems was originally their system! And it would seem to be going off gangbusters.

Hindsight - is when you fail to notice that an action you take now will kick you in the hind-quarters later...


Stefan Hill wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
rather than trying to target existing fans of other systems.

The almost laughable thing is one of the other systems was originally their system! And it would seem to be going off gangbusters.

Hindsight - is when you fail to notice that an action you take now will kick you in the hind-quarters later...

I dont really understand that, but that's kind of my point. I'm very happy with the status quo - PF services those who like their RPGs to be of the simulationist variety, 4E services those who prefer it to be simpler but less concerned with mimicking 'reality'. In my case, Paizo produce all the adventures and supplements I could ever need too and, although they're not as high quality, WoTC produce things I like also.

.
The fact PF is possible because of some legal license is pretty much irrelevant to gaming fans, isnt it? (In a practical sense, I mean - obviously some have an attachment to the idea of the OGL movement). As things stand now - there's Pathfinder, there's D&D and there's a host of other unsupported games more or less compatible with them and each other.

I think it's a good thing to have multiple games and I think the best strategy for an RPG company (as with just about any luxury, niche product) is to make the pie bigger, not to fight for a bigger slice.


Steve Geddes wrote:


Do you have any comments from them where they say 4E was wrong in some way? Or a mis-step or whatever?

Steve, I thought this article had a startling quote, so much so that I wonder if it was taken out of context:

Quote:
Mearls admits 4th edition might have gone too far in creating a perfectly balanced game. "We've lost faith of what makes an RPG an RPG," he said, admitting that in trying to please gamers with a limited imagination, 4th edition might have punished those with an active one. "There's this fear of the bad gaming group, where the game is so good that even playing with a bad gaming group, you'll still have fun."

Shadow Lodge

Scott Betts wrote:
People are trying to present reasons for not liking one or the other as objective - for instance, claiming that 4e's marketing insults older gamers, or claiming that certain things do not exist in 4e (when in reality they do). Both of these things are untrue, but are claimed as reasons for not liking 4e or WotC (or both).

I don't see where you are getting that from, except that most of the complaints about 4E and or WotC are fairly common and held by a lot of people. A lot of gamers that have any experience proir to 3E did not like 4E. Not all, but yes, many did not. It played like a collectible card game, even moreso than an MMO, and both of those target younger, and generally less mature gamers. Not insulting (though I'm sure you and other are going out of your way to take it that way), just saying younger and less into rules/machanics/logic etc, or with different priorities and mindsets than the older gamers.

Scott Betts wrote:
I also think it's kind of hilarious that people are whining in one thread about how awful it was of WotC to discuss 4e in terms of how it improved 3.5, and here we have nothing but people (some of them the same!) discussing 5e in terms of how they hope it improves from 4e.

And this is a bad thing? A lot of people. let me repeat, a lot of people do not like 4E, or many aspects of it, just as a lot of people don't care, and a lot of other people like 4E. It's been my universal experience in 3 different states and 2 countries that the last group is the smallest, and most gamers just saying it isn't for them. If that is the case, or anywhere close to it, than hoping for an improvment to a gae that they did not like for this and that reason is a very good thing. You know what happen the last two times this occured. We where told "No one is forcing you to stop playing ____ Edition". The same holds true now.

Scott Betts wrote:
"It's bad when the person who made the game criticizes it, but when I criticize it it's fine and not at all hypocritical!" seems to be the attitude.

Not sure if that made sense or I understand it the way you where intending it? Hypocritical?

I do see a lot of you, (and one or two other individuals) bashing anyone that whose posts, replies, or opinions you take in the worst possible ways, (like Icenqueen above), and call them liers or try to make them look stupid. I keep seeing responces like that never happened, but yes, it did happen. I was there, I remember it directly. There where a lot of things going on, by the way.

And now, it seems, WotC is officially agreeing with the common idea that 4E was not that well recieved over all, had more issues than 3E, and all in all, never lived up to all the promises (yes promises) about it. Ever wponder why WotC never released their annual sales figures or any data to the public on 4E (comparred to other companies or even other editions)? That's a pretty telling sign right there. You like it. Fine. I don't care if you do or not, and I certainly don't look down on you for it.

It is easier to miss some of the issues when you like something. But that doesn't mean they are not there, (and they are there for PF, and any edition of D&D as well, mind you, 4E just insisted they fixed it or it wasn't real).


Joana wrote:
Quote:
Mearls admits 4th edition might have gone too far in creating a perfectly balanced game. "We've lost faith of what makes an RPG an RPG," he said, admitting that in trying to please gamers with a limited imagination, 4th edition might have punished those with an active one. "There's this fear of the bad gaming group, where the game is so good that even playing with a bad gaming group, you'll still have fun."

Cheers.

I think the bolded is a little too strong - I doubt he'd say that was his point. Nonetheless, they clearly are openly declaring that they made errors, which is a new thing.

I'm very interested to see whether the 'next iteration' is planned as an olive branch to disaffected 3.5 fans (a mistake, in my view) or whether they are just being very careful not to repeat past errors and more making an attempt to 'broaden the game' without alienating those who currently play.

I'm one of those who has benefitted from a plethora of gaming choices. It's a slight concern to me if the biggest companies in town are both going to try and fill the same niche.


Adamantine Dragon wrote:
Stefan Hill wrote:


Still, early days.

S.

Yes, very early. Just as the 4e designers did not intend to go down a side road that ended up fracturing their fan base, the 5e designers will also have to choose which road to follow when roads diverge.

The idea that they can go both right AND left when they reach certain roads will not survive the first contact with reality.

"Let's spread, we'll cover a wider area" - I think this was on one of the tombstones in Naskhel (Baldur's Gate)

"Never Split the Party" - 4E motto

:)

Liberty's Edge

Joana wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:


Do you have any comments from them where they say 4E was wrong in some way? Or a mis-step or whatever?

Steve, I thought this article had a startling quote, so much so that I wonder if it was taken out of context:

Quote:
Mearls admits 4th edition might have gone too far in creating a perfectly balanced game. "We've lost faith of what makes an RPG an RPG," he said, admitting that in trying to please gamers with a limited imagination, 4th edition might have punished those with an active one. "There's this fear of the bad gaming group, where the game is so good that even playing with a bad gaming group, you'll still have fun."

Context or not, admitting as head of the design team that you aren't sure of what an RPG is, isn't smart.

Many companies would ask for the persons head if similar public comment was made.

So effectively, if we read this we can only come to the conclusion that a person who isn't sure what makes an RPG, went on to make 4e, decided it wasn't what makes an RPG, and then tells us he now knows and will make 5e. I am NOT saying he can't, just it's not a position of strength he we be preaching 5e's greatness from.

S


Mearls money quote wrote:
admitting that in trying to please gamers with a limited imagination, 4th edition might have punished those with an active one.

And there, in a nutshell, you have my main problem with 4e, stated succintly and publicly by the man who did it.


Adamantine Dragon wrote:
Mearls money quote wrote:
admitting that in trying to please gamers with a limited imagination, 4th edition might have punished those with an active one.
And there, in a nutshell, you have my main problem with 4e, stated succintly and publicly by the man who did it.

Except that Mearls didn't say that.

Edit: That is, if you read the quotation carefully, that bit is editorializing on the part of the interviewer.


bugleyman wrote:
Adamantine Dragon wrote:
Mearls money quote wrote:
admitting that in trying to please gamers with a limited imagination, 4th edition might have punished those with an active one.
And there, in a nutshell, you have my main problem with 4e, stated succintly and publicly by the man who did it.
Except that Mearls didn't say that. :)

Well, then there's a reporter who needs firing.


Mearls didn't say those exact words, no. That was a paraphrase by a reporter who heard him say something similar. Mearls has not said he didn't say it. Let's not split hairs on a minor point.


Jerry Wright 307 wrote:
Mearls didn't say those exact words, no. That was a paraphrase by a reporter who heard him say something similar. Mearls has not said he didn't say it. Let's not split hairs on a minor point.

I'm not the one splitting hairs. Since that quote absolutely distills my SERIOUS problems with 4e from the first day I looked at it, I suspect it is quite accurate. There could not be a more explicit, enlightening and accurate comment to make about 4e game design. I think that absolutely nails the problem with the game.

So I'm cautiously optimistic that he "gets it" at least. That's something.

Liberty's Edge

Explain the direct quote from Mr Mearls of;

"We've lost faith of what makes an RPG an RPG," he said

Confidence name thyself not Mike Mearls.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You know what I REALLY hate?

The people of Alpha Centauri. I do... I just hate them. They've never done anything for us, or taught us better technology.

Oh... wait a minute... I just realized we haven't even seen them yet. My bad.

Get it? ;)

Its okay for everyone to have an opinion, but I find it very odd we are already seeing so much anti-5e sentiment. Some sort-of preemptive strike, perhaps?

You want to hate 4e, fine. You want to dislike WotC (which everyone forgets saved D&D from oblivion once, and brought us the system Paizo is currently using), thats okay too. But please, PLEASE stop hating something no-one has ever seen yet.

I am no fan of 4e, and absolutely loathe what they did to The Forgotten Realms, but all this hold-over hatred isn't helping anyone.

If 5e is good, and lots of people enjoy it, in the long run we are all better-off.


I'm not certain what he meant by the "faith" comment, but I am pretty sure he was speaking about the design of 4E, not 5E. Based on some of the things he has written in the Legends & Lore column, I'd say he has a good grasp of what he wants to do with the new edition. He hasn't lost confidence in designing new stuff.


MarkusTay, I find it interesting that you read this thread or these boards and see "so much anti-5e sentiment". As someone who is not thrilled with 4e, but plays it, and prefers PathFinder but is hoping that 5e is an improvement, my take on these comments is that they are pretty strongly biased in favor of giving 5e a chance. That's certainly been my position. This reminds me of Tim Tebow threads, you're either for 'im or agin' im. No in between for some folks.

I am actually happy to see that WotC is admitting that 4e was a mistake and they are going back to the drawing board.

That's what I've been asking them to do for four years.


Looks like we lost some posts. I'll repost one of mine..

Markus, my take on these boards is that the large majority of folks who make comments are at least cautiously optimistic about 5e, including those, like me, who were not thrilled with what WotC did with 4e.

In some ways this reminds me of Tim Tebow threads. Folks on both sides see any discussion as attacking their position. I find it mostly pro-5e here.


Stefan Hill wrote:

Explain the direct quote from Mr Mearls of;

"We've lost faith of what makes an RPG an RPG," he said

Confidence name thyself not Mike Mearls.

Presumably his next sentence was intended to: "There's this fear of the bad gaming group, where the game is so good that even playing with a bad gaming group, you'll still have fun."

I thought he meant that it's a social endeavor, the success of which is driven by the participants. If the players, as a group, aren't interested in a particular style of play, the rules are not going to make it happen. The goal shouldn't be to "generate fun" but to enable the players to do that, using the rules.

I base that interpretation on the rather slender information available, namely the modular "pick and choose" structure they seem to be shooting for.


[twilight zone theme] I find it very interesting that the site went down and the quote attributed to Mr. Mearls about 4e having been designed to make the game easy for those with less imagination ending up punishing those with more imagination has vanished, along with all the responses to it. [/twilight zone theme]


Speaking of quotes, I was looking through past Legends and Lore articles from Wizards, and I came across this from an article dated 7/12/2011:

Mike Mearls wrote:

Imagine a world where the first-time D&D player

rolls stats, picks a race, picks a class, picks an alignment,
and buys gear to create a character. Imagine if
an experienced player, maybe the person helping our
theoretical player learn the ropes, could also make a
character by rolling ability scores and picking a race,
class, feat, skills, class features, spells or powers, and
so on. Those two players used different paths to build
characters, but the system design allows them to play
at the same table.

Such a setup is fairly easy to implement from a
design point of view. Let’s take a look at the fighter
in this world. The simple fighter—let’s call it the core
fighter—has a progression that provides attack and
damage bonuses that allow the fighter to operate as
a skilled warrior in combat. Other automatic options
could duplicate skills and non-combat abilities. In
terms of the math and options for combat, exploration,
and roleplay, the fighter is right on target for the skill
and power we expect from a character at each level.
The core fighter presents an advancement chart
that looks a lot like the one from the early days of
D&D. It tells you what you get, and your only real
choices lie in equipment.

Now let’s imagine that in a separate section of the
rules—perhaps right after the core fighter or maybe
in a chapter giving advanced character options—we
learn that the core fighter is just a fighter with all
of the choices made for it. Where the core fighter
has class features, the advanced fighter has choice
points such as feats and class feature menus. The core
fighter simply has a set of pre-selected benefits.

With that change, we’ve given a simple and customizable
option for every class. Even better, within
the advanced option we can give lots of different
types of choices. If you like making tactical choices,
perhaps some of the feats or class features give you
encounter, daily, or at-will powers. Other features
give you benefits that improve all of your attacks in a
manner similar to feats like Cleave or Power Attack.

It's interesting because it describes what Mearls and Cook have been talking about in 5E, and provides an example of how it might be implemented.


Adamantine Dragon wrote:
[twilight zone theme] I find it very interesting that the site went down and the quote attributed to Mr. Mearls about 4e having been designed to make the game easy for those with less imagination ending up punishing those with more imagination has vanished, along with all the responses to it. [/twilight zone theme]

AD, you might want to scroll up and see that the quotes are still there.


Jerry Wright 307 wrote:


It's interesting because it describes what Mearls and Cook have been talking about in 5E, and provides an example of how it might be implemented.

Hmm.... I'm not sure I'm seeing this approach in quite the same way. It seems to be saying that a "generic figther" is equal in all respects to a fighter built with feats, skills and abilities.

This is along the same lines of what 4e tried with the "there are no bad choices" build options. The end result in 4e, at least for me, is a system where everyone feels the same, the only real difference between members of the same role is the fluff.

I'm not interested in working my ass off to create a great character just so that someone can whack out a generic fighter and then "role play" him to do everything the same as my guy does, just as effectively.

If that's how it works, I'll just go generic and role play the heck out of him.


Jerry Wright 307 wrote:
Adamantine Dragon wrote:
[twilight zone theme] I find it very interesting that the site went down and the quote attributed to Mr. Mearls about 4e having been designed to make the game easy for those with less imagination ending up punishing those with more imagination has vanished, along with all the responses to it. [/twilight zone theme]
AD, you might want to scroll up and see that the quotes are still there.

You're right! They are!

[twilight zone music]... they came BACK![/twilight zone music]

:)

They really weren't there on my page when I posted that. I assure you.


I think the generic fighter already has feats, skills and abilities, but doesn't have to make any decisions. Kind of like the Starting Packages they have at the end of the classes in 3E.


Adamantine Dragon wrote:
[twilight zone theme] I find it very interesting that the site went down and the quote attributed to Mr. Mearls about 4e having been designed to make the game easy for those with less imagination ending up punishing those with more imagination has vanished, along with all the responses to it. [/twilight zone theme]

The quote is still there and you should really go back and read it. As bugleyman pointed out, the comment you're referring to wasn't by Mearls (it wasn't within the quotation marks) it was the author of the article saying that. As he said, it was editorializing.

Theyre admitting several mistakes at the moment, we don't have to start imagining them admitting things they didn't say. For reference:

Mearls admits 4th edition might have gone too far in creating a perfectly balanced game. "We've lost faith of what makes an RPG an RPG," he said, admitting that in trying to please gamers with a limited imagination, 4th edition might have punished those with an active one. "There's this fear of the bad gaming group, where the game is so good that even playing with a bad gaming group, you'll still have fun."


Jerry Wright 307 wrote:
I think the generic fighter already has feats, skills and abilities, but doesn't have to make any decisions. Kind of like the Starting Packages they have at the end of the classes in 3E.

Since I love creating characters almost as much as I love playing them, I'll probably still take the long route in creating characters, even if there is no game advantage to my hard work, dedication, study and execution.

Sure I will. I mean it. I really will. I'm just that way.

But what about those OTHER fellows, you know, the ones who believe that knowing the rules is SUPPOSED to give you an edge? In all this inclusive fervor, are we forgetting all about them?


Adamantine Dragon wrote:
They really weren't there on my page when I posted that. I assure you.

...sure. I believe you. Yeah...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Steve Geddes wrote:
Adamantine Dragon wrote:
[twilight zone theme] I find it very interesting that the site went down and the quote attributed to Mr. Mearls about 4e having been designed to make the game easy for those with less imagination ending up punishing those with more imagination has vanished, along with all the responses to it. [/twilight zone theme]

The quote is still there and you should really go back and read it. As bugleyman pointed out, the comment you're referring to wasn't by Mearls (it wasn't within the quotation marks) it was the author of the article saying that. As he said, it was editorializing.

Theyre admitting several mistakes at the moment, we don't have to start imagining them admitting things they didn't say.

Steve, I read it. It was not the reporter "editorializing." The proper literary term for it is the reporter was PARAPHRASING Mearls. Which, if true, means it is essentially the same as a quotation, unless the reporter was lying!

Mearls may not have said those words, but he said something enough like it to be the same thing. Or else the reporter needs to be fired and Mearls needs to demand a retraction.


I think the idea is balancing the options. So that you can mix and match what you want, but you aren't going to be overpowering a player who just wants to get on with the game.


*shrug* Mearls's words are right there too. The author's comments are clearly not a paraphrase of those, and I dont see why anyone would read it as such. It's a clumsy paragraph if he's paraphrasing two very specific, damning critiques of the game and then including two bland, open to interpretation sentences as direct quotes.

Am I right that you don't have much experience with mainstream media? I've been interviewed several times and can report (without hyperbole) that I have never been accurately represented. The only reliable way to ensure your own words get used as intended is to provide a written statement - they're careful then.


There are two reasons we know he paraphrased Mearls:

1. If he wasn't paraphrasing Mearls, he wouldn't have used the words "Mearls admits" and "admitting in trying to please...". Both of those phrases are journalist-speak that mean he is paraphrasing something Mearls admitted.

2. He is writing an article about an announcement of a new edition of D&D. His article is going to be read and re-read by everyone from gaming geeks to editors to Mearls himself. Misquoting or misrepresenting Mike Mearls in such an instance is going to result in someone getting fired.


I think you give journalists way too much credit. (seriously - I've been directly quoted as saying the exact opposite of what I believe. And have, quite honestly, never been accurately represented). That kind of article is as much opinion than anything else.

The fact he wouldn't give a quote to back up "4E might have gone to far in creating a perfectly balanced game" but did include the puzzling "we've lost faith of what makes an RPG an RPG" suggests to me that Mearls made a number of bland, conciliatory yet broad statements which the author formed his own conclusions about.

If you disagree with that, that's fair enough. But I would really counsel against reading anything prefaced by "Mr X admits..." as being therefore paraphrasing. Journalistic standards (especially wrt something as relatively unimportant and insignificant as the launch of an RPG) are just not that rigorously applied.


My theory on the disappearance and reappearance of the posts is that they had to bring the site back up to the last DB restore point, and they then reapplied the posts that had been saved off since that, and I happened to hit the site while the posts were still being applied.

Which is so much more boring than what I hoped, which was that Scott read that, roused his army of internet minions for a DoS attack, hacked into the site and removed the offending messages.

Oh well, sometimes reality is boring.


Steve Geddes wrote:

I think you give journalists way too much credit. (seriously - I've been directly quoted as saying the exact opposite of what I believe. And have, quite honestly, never been accurately represented). That kind of article is as much opinion than anything else.

The fact he wouldn't give a quote to back up "4E might have gone to far in creating a perfectly balanced game" but did include the puzzling "we've lost faith of what makes an RPG an RPG" suggests to me that Mearls made a number of bland, conciliatory yet broad statements which the author formed his own conclusions about.

If you disagree with that, that's fair enough. But I would really counsel against reading anything prefaced by "Mr X admits..." as being therefore paraphrasing. Journalistic standards (especially wrt something as relatively unimportant and insignificant as the launch of an RPG) are just not that rigorously applied.

Yeah Steve, when you are on trial for a murder you didn't commit and a witness says "Steve admitted to me that he did it" you'll sit there calmly and say "he's just editorializing.'

Right.

I am always amazed at the lengths people will go to to avoid saying "Oh, right. uh... that's pretty obvious actually."


Jerry Wright 307 wrote:
Mearls didn't say those exact words, no. That was a paraphrase by a reporter who heard him say something similar. Mearls has not said he didn't say it. Let's not split hairs on a minor point.

Sorry, I don't see mis-quoting someone as splitting hairs. A quotation is a quotation.


bugleyman wrote:
Jerry Wright 307 wrote:
Mearls didn't say those exact words, no. That was a paraphrase by a reporter who heard him say something similar. Mearls has not said he didn't say it. Let's not split hairs on a minor point.
Sorry, I don't see mis-quoting someone as splitting hairs. A quotation is a quotation.

Technically we should say an attribution is an attribution because it wasn't a "quote". It was an attribution.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

I removed a post. Don't be a jerk.


Basically, its little different then pre-generated characters that some modules came with, or what they use in tournament play. The 'thinking' is done for them, so you can just jump right in and play.

I don't think that is anything new - I always kept around a few spare characters for whoever wanted to join-in. I hope thats not the entirety of their plan, because it doesn't seem very innovative at all.

I assumed simpler skill sets and the like. Also, it can't simulate things like races-as-classes like OD&D had. I still have high-hopes, but if all it is is a buncha pre-builds, then why bother? I could simulate that easily with OGL/PF/3.5. I can even think of one computer game that gave you that option - Arcanum. All you had to do is pick a guy and play, if you didn't want to spend the half-hour or so character-building.

I'm going to have to completely agree with Adamantine's assessment - why bother investing the time, when the 'weekender' can stand toe-to-toe with your guy?


Ross Byers wrote:
I removed a post. Don't be a jerk.

I shall endeavor not to use the offensive word "friggin'" again then.

Interestingly, I don't recall anything remotely as offensive as calling someone a "jerk."

Liberty's Edge

Wow, there seems to be a lot of hostility or at least tension (hmm both are bad words, perhaps some what reserved but not quite disdain about their ability to do what they say. Phew that was a mouthful but fits better anyway.) floating around 5th edition. And so soon after the release of the fact that it is coming out.

Me personally I don't really care what it is going to be like. I do not play or own and any 4th ed books nor will I. I did however give 4th a shot when it first came out, and did not like it, I really hated the way I felt they treated their fans but that is another story and a long dead horse. So the release of 5th Edition does not sting me in the same way it might those who invested great gobs of money into 4th.

However I will play the 5th edition when it is released, I may not buy it, but I am sure my friends and group will and I will inevitibly be forced into at least one game using the system. But to be fair and give WotC another shot I went onto their site and I applied to be a playtester.

So I mean I can see why some people might be a little upset about it, but I think condemning it before anyone but a select few have even seen the rules and the way it plays is a bit harsh, it could turn out to be awsome.

My only worry is that it will be so awsome my group will not want to play Pathfinder anymore and all of my money spent on it will be for not.


Pyris Magmus wrote:
Me personally I don't really care what it is going to be like. I do not play or own and any 4th ed books nor will I. I did however give 4th a shot when it first came out, and did not like it, I really hated the way I felt they treated their fans but that is another story and a long dead horse. So the release of 5th Edition does not sting me in the same way it might those who invested great gobs of money into 4th.

I haven't seen a lot of people who invested "great gobs of money" into 4e complaining about the sting of the announcement. If anything, most of the negativity about 5e is coming from people who don't even like 4e.

Silver Crusade

I would feel better about this new edition if it supported a new game world and campaign setting as well. No more Greyhawk or Forgotten Realms. Something brand new to explore!


Scott Betts wrote:
If anything, most of the negativity about 5e is coming from people who don't even like 4e.

I think most of the negativity is from people who don't like WotC. 4E is just in the crossfire.

151 to 200 of 539 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Gaming / D&D / 4th Edition / My feelings about 5E D&D All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.