Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

PaizoCon 2014!

My feelings about 5E D&D


D&D 4th Edition (and Beyond)

401 to 450 of 539 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>
Shadow Lodge

Sebastrd wrote:

I don't understand why the "MY FEELINGS ABOUT 5E D&D" thread has become an excuse for a bunch of haters to wander in and b**** about why they despise 4E.

Please start your own thread somewhere else. 4E has been out for almost four years now, and not a single one of you has brought up anything that hasn't already been complained about ad nauseum here and everywhere else. We all get it.

Might we get back to ill-advised and ill-informed speculation about 5E now?

Since 4E came out (minus a month or two, if generous) not a single 4E superfan has braught up a valid excuse for any of the complaints made about 4E as nauseum, here and everywhere else. We all get it.

Because all the 4E things people hate have nothing to do with desires and opinions of 5E? The fact that they still hate a game after 4 years worth of time to fix itselfs ounds like excelent grounds for talking about 5E to me.

Maybe you should go start a thread for people who can just agree with you about the 4E perfection and how people are stupid that don't agree?

Silver Crusade

Actually, in a strange way, 4e was a good thing. Wizards of the Coast leaving the d20 Market was a good thing, because it created a void for a competitor to come in. Fourth, being so radical and representing a departure from the past, and Wizards of the Coast leaving the d20 Market behind was actually a good thing. With pathfinder coming in, showed that you can compete with WotC.

Look, Copyright is bad in my mind. But it was a good thing that WotC left. And Fourth was a very good thing. Unfortunately, it showed Wizards of the Coast how much people liked their games (the games their customers owned compared with what WotC produced.)

Just because I don't run Fourth doesn't mean that Fourth was the worst thing to come since the advent of Nuclear Weapons in our Age. The Player's Handbook of Fourth, however, isn't new player friendly and I'm glad they fixed this in Essentials. Plus, the marketing of Fourth in mid 2008 felt hostile. It felt absolutely hostile to the customer.

Cheliax

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
GM Elton wrote:

Unfortunately, it showed Wizards of the Coast how much people liked their games (the games their customers owned compared with what WotC produced.)

Interesting - I always kind of saw it as a recent example of a simple consumer principle that some businesses forget - your brand name only takes you so far.

While I'm sure it never hit on a memo, I think there was probably an unspoken internal expectation that people would invest in 4E strictly because it was D&D.

I think it also showed another reality that companies forget; your messageboard is not the absolute indication of consumer satisfaction. The success of the retro market, and 3.x derivatives like Pathfinder, Mutants and Masterminds, etc., tell me that the majority of people are not as disastified with the old "broken" editions as the internet would lead you to believe.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Beckett wrote:

Since 4E came out (minus a month or two, if generous) not a single 4E superfan has braught up a valid excuse for any of the complaints made about 4E as nauseum, here and everywhere else. We all get it.

Because all the 4E things people hate have nothing to do with desires and opinions of 5E? The fact that they still hate a game after 4 years worth of time to fix itselfs ounds like excelent grounds for talking about 5E to me.

Maybe you should go start a thread for people who can just agree with you about the 4E perfection and how people are stupid that don't agree?

First, I don't think 4E was perfect. Far from it, in fact.

Second, no one needs to make any excuses for the complaints about 4E. Do I need to defend myself for preferring Pepsi over Coke?

Third, there's been no indication that 5E will resemble 4E outside of optional modules that no one will be forced to use. In fact, the lead designer on the system right now was responsible for 3E, not 4E.

Posts like

GM Elton wrote:
You know, its strange but . . . I had one annoying problem with 4e. It was too radical a design for me to accept as D&D.
have nothing to do with
Steve Geddes wrote:
feelings about 5E are informed by their feelings about 4E.

I'm just one poster expressing my opinion that the 4E subforum isn't the place to have these "I hate 4E" circle jerks, and it's pathetic to do so in a 5E thread while making no pretense of discussion about 5E. The horse is dead. Stop and ask yourself what you're really trying to accomplish rehashing the same old ignorant and/or nebulous gripes and complaints.


Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber
Sebastrd wrote:
GM Elton wrote:
You know, its strange but . . . I had one annoying problem with 4e. It was too radical a design for me to accept as D&D.

have nothing to do with

Steve Geddes wrote:
feelings about 5E are informed by their feelings about 4E.
I'm just one poster expressing my opinion that the 4E subforum isn't the place to have these "I hate 4E" circle jerks, and it's pathetic to do so in a 5E thread while making no pretense of discussion about 5E. The horse is dead. Stop and ask yourself what you're really trying to accomplish rehashing the same old ignorant and/or nebulous gripes and complaints.

Me? I like 4E, all I'm "trying to accomplish" is to talk about RPGs with other people, many of whom have different views than me. I find those views interesting (when they're actually well expressed and grounded in experience not speculation) and it doesn't bother me that they tend to repeat common themes. In general, I think the only time these discussions get unpleasant is when people stop discussing the system and start discussing things they have no idea about (from the motivations of other posters to market share or corporate goals of WotC).

GM Elton found 4E a radical departure from previous D&D editions - far from being irrelevant to a discussion about 5E, I think his experience is exactly the kind of thing behind the "unify all editions" approach. He didn't present his view as fact, nor was it particularly aggressive, so I personally don't see the problem.

FWIW, paizo obviously moderate this forum closely - in my experience, flags pretty much get acted upon within a day. In my view, flagging an inappropriate post without response is the best way to make the forum better.

Shadow Lodge

Sebastrd wrote:
First, I don't think 4E was perfect. Far from it, in fact.

Sorry, I didn't mean that so much as a personal attack as much as a sarcastic (had meant to put the "[/sarcasm]" tag up as to show this works both ways.

Though I do think that bringing up the complaints of 4E (not to mention every other edition, including PF if you read the thread) is a very valid thing to do in the discussion of 5E. Both to show what you desire from or fear of the new edition, and to have an idea of what sort of improvments you might like to see, or hope they do not go with.


Sebastrd wrote:
Beckett wrote:

Since 4E came out (minus a month or two, if generous) not a single 4E superfan has braught up a valid excuse for any of the complaints made about 4E as nauseum, here and everywhere else. We all get it.

Because all the 4E things people hate have nothing to do with desires and opinions of 5E? The fact that they still hate a game after 4 years worth of time to fix itselfs ounds like excelent grounds for talking about 5E to me.

Maybe you should go start a thread for people who can just agree with you about the 4E perfection and how people are stupid that don't agree?

First, I don't think 4E was perfect. Far from it, in fact.

Second, no one needs to make any excuses for the complaints about 4E. Do I need to defend myself for preferring Pepsi over Coke?

Third, there's been no indication that 5E will resemble 4E outside of optional modules that no one will be forced to use. In fact, the lead designer on the system right now was responsible for 3E, not 4E.

Posts like

GM Elton wrote:
You know, its strange but . . . I had one annoying problem with 4e. It was too radical a design for me to accept as D&D.
have nothing to do with
Steve Geddes wrote:
feelings about 5E are informed by their feelings about 4E.
I'm just one poster expressing my opinion that the 4E subforum isn't the place to have these "I hate 4E" circle jerks, and it's pathetic to do so in a 5E thread while making no pretense of discussion about 5E. The horse is dead. Stop and ask yourself what you're really trying to accomplish rehashing the same old ignorant and/or nebulous gripes and complaints.

If you want to talk about 5e do so. No one is stopping you.


FWIW, I generally agree with both of you. I don't begrudge anyone their views or opinions, as long as they're informed, well-articulated opinions. Open-minded, intelligent, sincere discussion is valuable regardless. Discussing specifics of prior editions and adjustments we'd like to see is great. Re-stating for the umpteen millionth time that 4E isn't "real D&D" is pointless and unhelpful.


Sebastrd wrote:

FWIW, I generally agree with both of you. I don't begrudge anyone their views or opinions, as long as they're informed, well-articulated opinions. Open-minded, intelligent, sincere discussion is valuable regardless. Discussing specifics of prior editions and adjustments we'd like to see is great. Re-stating for the umpteen millionth time that 4E isn't "real D&D" is pointless and unhelpful.

You can't say you don't begrudge anyone their (right to voice) their views ... and then add 'as long as...'.

There's a reason the 4e boards only busy(ish) threads are those featuring healthy debate from both sides of the fence. People like (or love to hate) reading them. If they only meet your personal view of what constitutes 'informed' opinion I dare say they'd be as busy, or not, as the rest of the 4e threads here.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion Subscriber
Beckett wrote:
With that in mind, it's kind of sounding like you might see yourself being the only one in the world with the right to vocalize?

You're obviously not familiar with Sebastrd's posting history.

Here, this might help.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber
Sebastrd wrote:
FWIW, I generally agree with both of you. I don't begrudge anyone their views or opinions, as long as they're informed, well-articulated opinions. Open-minded, intelligent, sincere discussion is valuable regardless. Discussing specifics of prior editions and adjustments we'd like to see is great. Re-stating for the umpteen millionth time that 4E isn't "real D&D" is pointless and unhelpful.

I dont really accept the "we've heard it all before" admonition - it comes up a lot all over the place, not just in contentious threads - eg. when people continually ask Paizo to collate their APs, to reprint out-of-print flipmats, etcetera.

The fact is that although you and I may have been discussing 4E on this messageboard for several years, others might be beginning their discussion now. I have heard some people advocate reading a forum extensively before posting, personally I'm of the opposite view - if there's a conversation happening that I've heard a hundred times, I'll just ignore it and look for something that's fresh. I dont see any value in telling people that it's already been discussed.

With regard to the more substantial point, I dont know if we differ or not, but I also dont have a problem with "It doesnt feel like D&D" as opposed to "It isnt D&D". It's true that from time to time we get the "4E is just an MMO! Fighters are identical to mages! Hasbro made them do it! etcetera..." posts - quite often by people who then never post again. I think the correct response is just to flag anything which seems to contradict a forum guideline and discuss (if you feel like) people's experiences who frame it more as a subjective judgement, based on the way they play the game.


I think 5Ed can succeed where 4Ed failed if WoTC will avoid the (now unfortunately time honored) practice of putting out 1 splat book per month, and over-saturating the game system with too many core rule books and supplemental books. This happened in both 3.5 and (even more egregiously so) 4th Editions, with each of the dozens of books containing a necessary portion of the basic game system; but which are so diluted and spread out in an effort to encourage people to buy all the different books; to the point where the game becomes a burden. I don't imagine that players are going to invest the time and expense of re-acquiring all the books that they've just spent the last 3 years purchasing, only to find that they are doing the same rat race all over again.
Pathfinder has the ideal model of having 2-3 significant books per year, which gives the game continuity and doesn't overwhelm it with endless watered down rule content. Keeping the Core books to a minimum, and marketing the other stuff with the feedback of the fans, as well as having an OGL of some sort, and I think you have the potential for success. In short, WoTC should do what Paizo does now.

Andoran

Killer_GM wrote:

I think 5Ed can succeed where 4Ed failed if WoTC will avoid the (now unfortunately time honored) practice of putting out 1 splat book per month, and over-saturating the game system with too many core rule books and supplemental books. This happened in both 3.5 and (even more egregiously so) 4th Editions, with each of the dozens of books containing a necessary portion of the basic game system; but which are so diluted and spread out in an effort to encourage people to buy all the different books; to the point where the game becomes a burden. I don't imagine that players are going to invest the time and expense of re-acquiring all the books that they've just spent the last 3 years purchasing, only to find that they are doing the same rat race all over again.

Pathfinder has the ideal model of having 2-3 significant books per year, which gives the game continuity and doesn't overwhelm it with endless watered down rule content. Keeping the Core books to a minimum, and marketing the other stuff with the feedback of the fans, as well as having an OGL of some sort, and I think you have the potential for success. In short, WoTC should do what Paizo does now.

Well, to be fair to Sebastrd's sense of semantics and word-games, what I'm about to say is speculation, but IMO it fits what we know so far...

If WotC were to do as you suggest, regarding how they sell 5E/D&D-Next, I'm sure they'd be able to make a nice profit doing it (nice profit, by, say, Paizo's standards). I don't think it's going to be anywhere near the profit levels that Hasbro expects their subsidiary to be making for them on the D&D line, if that line is to continue...

So, my prediction (we'll see how accurate it is in a few years, I suppose) is that, no matter how good or bad a game 5E/Next turns out to be, it will then be pushed on the "splat-book-a-month + DDI" model until, in another 3-5 years, it's time for the new edition. Anything less, will not even come close to the profit numbers that Hasbro is likely to be looking for-- even though it will likely be profitable (in the literal, making not losing money, business sense).


Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber

As a 4E player, I'm perplexed at this perceived 'splat book a month' model. Which books are you talking about? I think you can play 4E with a DDI subscription and the rules compendium - in fact I think the DDI discourages purchasing splat books.

Is it perhaps a reference to the early releases? Where they spread the various classes among three Player's Handbooks and so forth? Since, as I understand it, they've explicitly stated their intention is to avoid that this time around and make sure every core class is available in the core, 'first book'.

Andoran

Steve Geddes wrote:

As a 4E player, I'm perplexed at this perceived 'splat book a month' model. Which books are you talking about? I think you can play 4E with a DDI subscription and the rules compendium - in fact I think the DDI discourages purchasing splat books.

Is it perhaps a reference to the early releases? Where they spread the various classes among three Player's Handbooks and so forth? Since, as I understand it, they've explicitly stated their intention is to avoid that this time around and make sure every core class is available in the core, 'first book'.

I'm gonna admit, 'splat-book-a-month' is drawn from the post I was replying to-- but it did seem to me, during the time that I was playing 4E, that WotC was pushing about a hardcover book a month (sometimes more) with crunchy rules in each one, so I didn't think the model was off-- I could be wrong, since I stopped playing 4E quite a while ago. However, I do think Hasbro (and their stockholders) are going to expect a level of profits from this that are quite a bit higher than the level of profits that would satisfy many other game companies in this business... so I don't think following Paizo's smaller/slower sales model will work out for WotC-- which is what I was really getting at in that post.

While I've admitted it's speculation based on what we see going on-- that was already my take on why we're seeing a new edition already-- it's not that 4E wasn't profitable (it almost certainly was making a profit), and not that it wasn't successful (by many company's standards, it probably was)-- it's that it wasn't profitable enough or "successful" enough, by the expectations Hasbro has for its subsidiaries. Now, I may be wrong...


Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber

I think you're probably correct that WoTC have higher profit/revenue targets than paizo. (I don't think you're correct about Hasbro's involvement - although it seems common to assume D&D is guided by Hasbro, I'm very skeptical of that view. The brand is tiny as far as they're concerned, I would think).

It seems to me that WoTC used to have a focus on producing player supplements, so I don't think your perception of "crunch over flavor" is off. What I would dispute is labeling paizo's model "smaller sales" (other than by virtue of being an adolescent gorilla). I buy everything from both companies and it's roughly comparable (excluding the gamemastery products and the dungeon tiles and sundry map products, cards and so forth).

I think if one were to purchase only one company's RPG products, but in a completionist way, you would be spending roughly the same amount.


In the first two years 4E was in print, they averaged a "splat book" every two months. In the second two years (running through August 2012) the rate decreased to one every four months. If you include DMG and setting type books and monster books, they'll have averaged one book every 45 days over four years. That doesn't include adventures or campaign settings.

I agree with Steve - DDI actually discourages the purchase of splat books since you can get all of the rules information in one place. I also think that an aggressive schedule of expanding rules options decreases the lifespan of the system.

It's possible, though, that 5E will buck the trend. Since it sounds like "splat books" will introduce optional systems instead of simply expanding on the existing rules, we may not feel like we're drowning in a sea of rules bloat quite so quickly.


If they actually aggressively published splat rules in DDI an then put polished and errated variants of those on paper they'd make DDI far more attractive AND make the splatbooks still a viable option for non-DDI crowd IMO.


Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber

They do produce quite a lot of DDI crunch, at the moment (though the "annual" compilations were a flop) I'd love it if they had a print option too but sadly it's been seeming less and less important to them lately.


I meant the stuff that was in PHB II and III and various power books and was later errated repeatedly. If it came out in DDI first and then corrected was put in the books like those I mentioned in smaller print runs it could be feasible IMO.


Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber

Oh, I see. My experience with 4E began relatively late in the process (I think the PH3 was out at the time we started playing). Since essentials they've really ramped up dragon and dungeon (it appears to me, anyhow).

Andoran

Pathfinder Maps Subscriber

One thing I would like to see with D&D Next is to do a smaller initial print run, so that when they do bring out errata, they can afford to do a new printing that incorporates that errata.

I paid out for the 4e Deluxe core books so I got some of the early errata incorporated, but would pay again for a PHB, DMG and MM that incorporated errata. Essentials wasn't a good way for me to buy errata as those products don't replace my core books, and updates to MM monsters via DDI isn't good enough, I want a physical book I can take to the table.

So yes, in this aspect my experience of 4e is driving my view on D&D Next. Although I will get involved in the playtest of D&D Next, I may actually wait a good year or so from the core book(s) release to actually purchase them.


Well, I've already decided that when I'll play 4E again, it will be Essentials-based with anything of the earlier materials will be allowed on case by case basis. For complicated games I have Pathfinder, so I'd like to keep it as simple as possible and the sheer amount of erata makes a lot of older materials somewhat unappealing to me.


Sebastrd wrote:
Contrary to popular belief, all opinions are not equally valid. I wouldn't ask my garbage man for medical advice or my paper boy for stock tips.

Yes, but the opinions that matter for 5E aren't along those lines. Once you are a potential customer your opinion matters as much as anyone else. In fact, I would suggest that the potential customer is the one whose opinion likely matters the most. The person who will buy the product no matter what actually matters less here, because there is very little potential for a lost sale with them.

Shadow Lodge

Likewise, the people who hate 4E, hate WotC, hate Hasbro, have already decided they hate 5E, and are convinced that 4E killed their puppy...their opinion probably matters very little either, since there is very little potential for a sale with them, period.


Kthulhu wrote:
Likewise, the people who hate 4E, hate WotC, hate Hasbro, have already decided they hate 5E, and are convinced that 4E killed their puppy...their opinion probably matters very little either, since there is very little potential for a sale with them, period.

Exactly.

What they need to hear from is people like my gaming group, where 4 of us purchased the 4E starter books, and one of the 4 kept buying them for a short time past that. We played it and didn't like it, and moved to Pathfinder when someone bought one of the books. The customer they lost, but have a chance to get back is exactly what they are after. And they need to figure out how to do that without angering the current customer base as well.

Ideally, they will figure out what from 4E worked and keep it. They will look at what from 4E caused problems with the people who didn't make a second 4E purchase and either drop it or scale it back. (this is just my opinion, but I felt that 4E often took good things too far, diminishing what could have been) And ideally, they will look at the things from earlier editions and incorporate some of that as well.


I hold no expectations that 5E will be a resounding success, or that I will even play it, but for the sake of the table-top gaming community, I sure hope it is.
If it is successful enough to draw more people into our hobby, the whole industry wins.

Shadow Lodge

Kthulhu wrote:
Likewise, the people who hate 4E, hate WotC, hate Hasbro, have already decided they hate 5E, and are convinced that 4E killed their puppy...their opinion probably matters very little either, since there is very little potential for a sale with them, period.

Actually not at all. I hate 4E with a passion, albeit one I tend to keep to myself unless asked. I am not a fan of WotC/Hasboro for a lot of things they did directly involving 4E vs earlier edition products, but I'm still going to give 5E a valid chance, just like I gave 4E one. If I'm going to hate it, it is going to be after I've played it well enough be familiar with the system, have a reasonable notion of what the future products are like, and after I have actual experience with what portions I don't like.

Andoran

Beckett wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
Likewise, the people who hate 4E, hate WotC, hate Hasbro, have already decided they hate 5E, and are convinced that 4E killed their puppy...their opinion probably matters very little either, since there is very little potential for a sale with them, period.
Actually not at all. I hate 4E with a passion, albeit one I tend to keep to myself unless asked. I am not a fan of WotC/Hasboro for a lot of things they did directly involving 4E vs earlier edition products, but I'm still going to give 5E a valid chance, just like I gave 4E one. If I'm going to hate it, it is going to be after I've played it well enough be familiar with the system, have a reasonable notion of what the future products are like, and after I have actual experience with what portions I don't like.

That is imo the difference between yourself and some other 4E fans. You bought the game you tried it and it's not for you. Sometimes you see others in the hobby posting or talking negatives about 4E and it's obvious they never played let alone read 4E. Or no matter what Wotc does they will despise them until the day Wotc ceases to be. No offence if I was selling a product I'm really not interested in hearing from a person who mind has been made up and has no interest in listening to anything I have to say. Just seems like a waste of time. Better to focus on someone who at least is willing to listen to what oyu have to say.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't hate 4E or WotC or Hasbro.
I hate the fact that on faith I pre-paid almost 200 bucks for set of core rule books, after having read them, I will never use.

For me this is a fool me once, fool me twice situation.

I still wish them luck with 'Next', and hope it brings new gamers into the fold.

Shadow Lodge

memorax wrote:
That is imo the difference between yourself and some other 4E fans. You bought the game you tried it and it's not for you. Sometimes you see others in the hobby posting or talking negatives about 4E and it's obvious they never played let alone read 4E. Or no matter what Wotc does they will despise them until the day Wotc ceases to be. No offence if I was selling a product I'm really not interested in hearing from a person who mind has been made up and has no interest in listening to anything I have to say. Just seems like a waste of time. Better to focus on someone who at least is willing to listen to what oyu have to say.

I disagree. One of my biggest issues with the whole thing is that WotC pulled all of D&D's prior games from the market, specifically the PDF's which I had paid for under the assumption that I can redownload them whenever I needed. The notice that WotC disallowed other companies from A.) continueign to sell B.) continuing to allow future downloads of things I HAD ALREADY BAUGHT, and C.) treating me both like a criminal and basically givine me as a loyal and longtime customer the finger whilst D.) trying to hide their intentions of promoting 4E exclusively behind this "we want to protect the brick and mortors".

(Oh yah, what was that argument about DDI material again. . .!!!)

No, to me the hate for 4E and WotC is perfectly valid, especially in the sense of the appearance of trying to change the way those people that where screwed over view the next (ha ha pun) edition. It's the people that want to hide that dirt under the rug that are the fanatics with tunnel-vision in need of doing some actual research on the subject.

As Kryzbyn said, the "Fool me once/Fool me twice" situation is exactly right.


Kthulhu wrote:
Likewise, the people who hate 4E, hate WotC, hate Hasbro, have already decided they hate 5E, and are convinced that 4E killed their puppy...their opinion probably matters very little either, since there is very little potential for a sale with them, period.

I don't think wotc share that opinion. (Aside from anything, imho, they can't afford to.) Their oft-stated aim is primarily to draw back precisely the customers they lost over the course of 4e's short lifespan, 'to unite' the split D&D customer base.

That's probably why you can find (quite easily - page 1 of a google search) forums where 4vengers are spitting fire and brimstone (and I mean really HOT flames!) because they regard the 5e stuff revealed so far as extremely '3e/PF' rather than 'building on 4e's mechanics'.

Wotc are doing their best to sell the new edition to those who didn't like 4e. The question is ... will it work.

Whether it's successful or not, 5e will not be just a somewhat advanced version of 4e - that'd be death for the edition.

Paizo Employee Digital Products Assistant

Removed a few posts and replies to them. Being malicious is generally frowned upon, please refer to the messageboard rules.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Beckett wrote:
I hate 4E with a passion...

You don't say?

Beckett wrote:
...albeit one I tend to keep to myself unless asked.

Yeah...not so much.

Shadow Lodge

ok?


I didn't get a chance 9okay honestly didn't take the time) to read the 4e books before buying them, but as soon as I had read them, I knew it was not a playable system for my campaign world.

My opinion on 5e is that I will take the time to read, at least the first Player's handbook sample, I can before deciding to spend my money on the system.

I don't play a whole lot anymore, at 48 it is getting harder to find groups who will tolerate my style, but i would like to keep running games in my campaign world, which is kind of centered upon everything that was before 4e. I don't like the new static classes with flip card abilities. I want a fighter who can wear any kind of armor he wants to wear, and use any kind of weapon/tactics he wants to use.

My opinion on 5e is that the people who will bring this out are more interested in making people happy who have giant penny arcade like resources and player versus player attitudes. I have a hunch that 5e will not be a game I'm interested in, particularly if certain confessions of part time sorceresses are included in the design.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Beckett wrote:
ok?

I suppose it's ok with me for you to do one thing, then say another. Thanks for asking, though. :)


Terquem wrote:
...particularly if certain confessions of part time sorceresses are included in the design.

I don't read that column. Care to elaborate?


While I am pleased with Shelly Mazzanoble's approach to the "subject" of playing Dungeons & Dragons, and how that should be fun, I abhor her attitude toward the game as if she (given that her experiences being playing games predominantly within the office of the company) has her finger on the pulse of what “makes” the game so much fun, and her enthusiasm for the 4e books as the best form of the game, is seriously overstated, in my opinion, as well.

Now in her book, “confessions of a part time sorceress”, she clearly demonstrates how a novice can find fun playing D&D, but she too often, again in my opinion, conflates the enthusiasm for the “game” with enthusiasm for the product, and her writing style, once again in my opinion, particularly with her second book, “Everything I need to know I learned Playing Dungeons and Dragons” is so much a commercial for the product it is offensive to me (And as I believe that I once told her that I was writing a book of the same title, with my 30 years of experience playing the game, it hurts that she took the title and published a piece of crap on the theme – because reading her book it is obvious to me that “she” didn’t learn anything playing D&D and simply wrote what her employers told her to write).

Andoran

Beckett wrote:
memorax wrote:
That is imo the difference between yourself and some other 4E fans. You bought the game you tried it and it's not for you. Sometimes you see others in the hobby posting or talking negatives about 4E and it's obvious they never played let alone read 4E. Or no matter what Wotc does they will despise them until the day Wotc ceases to be. No offence if I was selling a product I'm really not interested in hearing from a person who mind has been made up and has no interest in listening to anything I have to say. Just seems like a waste of time. Better to focus on someone who at least is willing to listen to what oyu have to say.

I disagree. One of my biggest issues with the whole thing is that WotC pulled all of D&D's prior games from the market, specifically the PDF's which I had paid for under the assumption that I can redownload them whenever I needed. The notice that WotC disallowed other companies from A.) continueign to sell B.) continuing to allow future downloads of things I HAD ALREADY BAUGHT, and C.) treating me both like a criminal and basically givine me as a loyal and longtime customer the finger whilst D.) trying to hide their intentions of promoting 4E exclusively behind this "we want to protect the brick and mortors".

(Oh yah, what was that argument about DDI material again. . .!!!)

No, to me the hate for 4E and WotC is perfectly valid, especially in the sense of the appearance of trying to change the way those people that where screwed over view the next (ha ha pun) edition. It's the people that want to hide that dirt under the rug that are the fanatics with tunnel-vision in need of doing some actual research on the subject.

As Kryzbyn said, the "Fool me once/Fool me twice" situation is exactly right.

QFT. TY, Beckett-- it needed to be said. :)

What Beckett said, both in this post, and the one before it, covers my opinions on 4E, WotC, and 5E pretty well also. And, I did play 4E, for over a year, before finally trashing all my 4E books because yes, I really did dislike the system-- but it's not because I didn't give it a chance. And, like Beckett's stated opinion, I am going to give 5E a chance, rather than just reject it out of hand.


Terquem wrote:

While I am pleased with Shelly Mazzanoble's approach to the "subject" of playing Dungeons & Dragons, and how that should be fun, I abhor her attitude toward the game as if she (given that her experiences being playing games predominantly within the office of the company) has her finger on the pulse of what “makes” the game so much fun, and her enthusiasm for the 4e books as the best form of the game, is seriously overstated, in my opinion, as well.

Now in her book, “confessions of a part time sorceress”, she clearly demonstrates how a novice can find fun playing D&D, but she too often, again in my opinion, conflates the enthusiasm for the “game” with enthusiasm for the product, and her writing style, once again in my opinion, particularly with her second book, “Everything I need to know I learned Playing Dungeons and Dragons” is so much a commercial for the product it is offensive to me (And as I believe that I once told her that I was writing a book of the same title, with my 30 years of experience playing the game, it hurts that she took the title and published a piece of crap on the theme – because reading her book it is obvious to me that “she” didn’t learn anything playing D&D and simply wrote what her employers told her to write).

I never cared for her writing style either, hence the reason I don't read her column. I always saw her as a misguided attempt to relate to the female gamer.


Beckett wrote:

I disagree. One of my biggest issues with the whole thing is that WotC pulled all of D&D's prior games from the market, specifically the PDF's which I had paid for under the assumption that I can redownload them whenever I needed. The notice that WotC disallowed other companies from A.) continueign to sell B.) continuing to allow future downloads of things I HAD ALREADY BAUGHT, and C.) treating me both like a criminal and basically givine me as a loyal and longtime customer the finger whilst D.) trying to hide their intentions of promoting 4E exclusively behind this "we want to protect the brick and mortors".

No, to me the hate for 4E and WotC is perfectly valid, especially in the sense of the appearance of trying to change the way those people that where screwed over view the next (ha ha pun) edition. It's the people that want to hide that dirt under the rug that are the fanatics with tunnel-vision in need of doing some actual research on the subject.

As Kryzbyn said, the "Fool me once/Fool me twice" situation is exactly right.

I never held any of that against WotC. I've never seen a company continue to market their old product once the new version hits the shelves. There's no requirement for WotC to honor an agreement between myself and a third party. Granted, I don't think pulling PDFs to combat piracy was a smart or effective move, but that's the trend these days.

There are so many more important things in this world. As a husband and father, I have enough to worry about putting food on the table and keeping a roof over our heads. I don't have the time or energy to expend hating a gaming company. At best it might rise to the level of disappointment, but that's about it. Am I really the "fanatic"?

401 to 450 of 539 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Community / Gaming / D&D 4th Edition (and Beyond) / My feelings about 5E D&D All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.