Thevanan Quain

Rockheimr's page

295 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 295 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

What are the significant rules differences then that make this one a new edition?

The summary upthread could fit any edition of RQ I've seen. I'm a huge fan of the system - in fact it's my go-to system of choice. But I'm not seeing any changes.

I myself made a change a while back; to percentile the characteristics too, bringing them in line with skills. I also did away with hit points and have a four scale wound system instead. (Light, Medium and Severe Wounds, and kill strikes - with variance depending on the body part hit, and weapons giving a percentile bonus to a percentile damage roll.)

BRP/RQ is better imo than D20 systems because it allows descriptive combat results from rolls (GM's don't need to make up what wound you took - the rolls tell you clearly what happened - not abstract a/c and hp results). It avoids the artificiality of 'character class', or level. You can also build whatever character you can imagine - with no need for books full of new character classes. Also, it's basic concepts are elegantly simple - I rarely have any need to consult rulebooks during play - indeed the basic rules have always been possible to summarise effectively on one side of a sheet of paper. With a few tweaks the system works for just about any setting in my experience.

TERRIBLE. Played it on the hardest setting, finished it in a couple of nights - spent a coupla hours on multiplayer (which is a tiny bit better than the awful single player - watch Angry Joe's review, he summed it up best for me), then traded it back at the store today.

Really awful. Graphics that look 3 - 5 years out of date, woeful AI, crappy story, utterly uninteresting characters, and I only got to use the smart gun in single player for about 5 minutes!! Unforgivable.

D&D Red Box Basic - the one with the Elmore dragon cover. Still have the books on my shelf these decades later.

The Ancient Blades Trilogy, by David Chandler, feature a pretty great depiction of a traditional 'goody' paladin type in Croy - the thief central character's side-kick (though he'd never think of himself that way).

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The thing is we have a looong mass cultural attachment to alcohol (and to a lesser extent tobacco) that cannot realistically be changed. Adding other dangerous substances which we don't really have much cultural link to historically seems a bad idea.

Anyhoo, that aside, I LOVED Part 1 of the Hobbit (and didn't mind the drug references), don't listen to purists - who were never going to like it, it's really good fun. Or if you're a purist, more power to you, but don't bother going - you won't like it. The only point I personally didn't like and thought unnecessary was the stone giant sequence - which was way over the top and really unbelievable imo. Okay, as with any movie there were little niggles, but really no more than in the excellant PJ LOTR movies - and less than I had with RotK.

Loved the main Orc bad guy, liked the Great Goblin, loved the (Gundabad-)wargs, but most of all (despite mainstream reviews to the contrary) the film splendidly succeeds in making the dwarves identifiable individuals and sympathetic. Thorin especially is very well done. I was able by the end to name almost all of the dwarves by sight - which is no mean feat for PJ to have achieved.

Oh and the scenes showing Dale and Erebor at their heights made me have a geekgasm in my pants. Brilliant visuals.

I'm not sure the 3d did much, beyond a couple of nice moments when a moth or a bird flew out over the audience, so I'd probably advising going to IMAX 3d for the first showing, and (as I will be next week some time) when you go for the inevitable second cinema viewing switch to a standard screen.

Btw, what potions of longevity have Elijah Wood and Kate Blanchett been guzzling? Those guys have not visually aged one jot.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Vader's return from the dead would be the final nail for me.

SW is practically dead to me anyway, but that would definitely bury it for all time as far as I'm concerned.

I expect they will just not reference the vast majority of EU stuff, they want a new fresh start, getting tangled up in canon most movie goers neither know nor care about would be pointless. The problem with setting a new SW movie in the future is who are the villains?

It's actually really hard coming up with new bad guys for SW. Look at the Prequels, they failed utterly imo.

The Empire was just such a fantastic baddy, it's ships looked great, it's troops looked great, it's vehicles looked great, it had Vader and the Emperor. It was the complete package. Coming up with something similarly iconic and memorable, well that's a tall order. On the other hand just bringing the Empire back ruins the end of RotJ.

I am curious to see what they come up with...

We play in South Croydon friday nights.

Hi - if you can get over to Croydon, we are playing PF here every Friday and are looking for a new player (as one of our guys is a bit unreliable at the mo)?

Tequila Sunrise wrote:

Rockheimr wrote:

People used to say those of us stating 4e seemed to be failing were making 'huge assumptions' and relying on 'anecdotal evidence' ... and yet here we are, 4e's quickly seeming deader than corduroy, and 5e's on it's way. Sometimes personal anecdotes and opinions seem to be correct.

Again, there was always going to be a 5e. To think otherwise is naive.

Of course there was, but not so quickly. Even WOTC in their press statements have made no bones that 5e has been rushed forward because of the dip in sales of 4e. This isn't some kind of grand secret.

Tequila Sunrise wrote:

Tacticslion wrote:
But yes, these are very bold opinions. People do make those kinds of things from time to time. Me too!

Fair enough; and here's mine. 5e will be followed by another radical edition change after about five years, thus adding to the mound of evidence that radical edition changes every five-ish years is WotC's MO. And yes, WotC will still be in the D&D business.

At approximately the same time, Paizo will switch to PF 2e. There will be gnashing of teeth by some fans, and joyous shouts from other fans; thus will PF will 'split its fanbase' as every other lasting rpg has done. Some PF fans will think "The fanbase is split, has PF begun an inexorable downward spiral?!" But those of who've seen a few edition changes will just grunt "Welcome to the edition treadmill."

And lastly, some D&Der with a chip on his shoulder will click on a thread entitled "PF 2e: a Sign of Paizo's Distress?" and comment that "PF 1e must be that bad to be running Paizo into the ground." But that won't be me, because I'll have finally learned to not get involved with petty edition BS.

Good gaming,
I'm outta here.

Here's a bit of personal opinion; I don't think gamers LIKE games having new editions every 3 or 4 years. They don't like it because they have to pay money for new rule books, new monster manuals, and so on, and they have to actually learn a new rules set.

If your business model is based upon expecting people not to notice a 3 to 4 year life span of the present edition ... then I personally think you're setting yourself up to fail.

It's interesting to me that it always seems to be the pro-4e people chuntering on about 'new editions' of PF. As far as I can see no one at Paizo has made any noises whatsoever about a new edition of PF being even planned. The Paizo guys seem smart enough to know they've created a damn good version of D&D and are supporting it in earnest. Why risk killing the goose that lays the golden eggs?

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
Stefan Hill wrote:
They have been sort of forced too by the fact that 4e didn't quite hit the mark with the D&D gaming community.
Rockheimr wrote:
4e has probably (we shall see) in the long term killed D&D, it was that bad - imo.

These are very bold opinions.

Since 2008 I've played 4e exclusively and haven't played PF once. Of the three 'general' gamer forums I frequent -- WotC (well, used to), ENworld, and rpgnet -- 4e has its share of fans and detractors. PF is largely viewed as a 3.5 clone, and often elicits comments like "Why play PF when I have my own house rules?" Should I take this to mean that PF didn't hit the mark within the D&D community, or that it's just that bad?

I hope you'd agree that this would be a huuuge assumption based on limited anecdotal experience.

Some people still play 1e, but I think we'd agree commercially that game is deader than a-line flared trousers with pockets in the knees?

I don't in fact 'play' PF, I prefer another system personally, but I do regularly buy PF books as they are extremely mineable for plot ideas, characters, interesting monsters, adventures, settings, locations etc etc. Everything that I've found 4e to basically ignore.

People used to say those of us stating 4e seemed to be failing were making 'huge assumptions' and relying on 'anecdotal evidence' ... and yet here we are, 4e's quickly seeming deader than corduroy, and 5e's on it's way. Sometimes personal anecdotes and opinions seem to be correct.

EDIT - I'm not certain D&D is dead, indeed in the short term it's not - 5e will inevitably create some degree of lift for it - I was saying long term 4e has probably killed it's previously monolithic overshadowing of the hobby. 5e will have to be something incredible to win back those of us who haven't bought a wotc book in the past 2-3 years.

Kthulhu wrote:
theroc wrote:
Just a note on new players too...I have not personally seen so many new players in D&D that 4E brought in since the early 80's when 1st Edition was played by everyone. I have multiple groups of totally new players who stated D&D with 4E. But with that couple dozen...almost NONE of them bought much of the rulebooks...if any. The characterbuilder did so well with printing the material, most created their character on someone else's account, and although they play every week...they have never bought a book.
I make this point every time someone starts crowing about Pathfinder being the #1 most popular RPG. It probably IS the #1 book-selling RPG at the moment, but I'm not really sure that translates into being the most popular one. I'd wager that the divide between number of Pathfinder players and the number of 4E players is much MUCH narrower than the ICv2 sales report would indicate, and may even favor 4E. The fact that 4E is still #2 despite the fact that their print products have all but dried up for well over a year supports my conjecture.

The simple fact PF is even arguably outselling D&D shows what a complete and utter failure 4e was. Think back 2 or 3 years, back then 4vengers laughed at any slight possibility PF would ever outsell 4e, it was so unlikely as to seem completely impossible. Only an enormous shift away from D&D/4e made this happen. 4e has probably (we shall see) in the long term killed D&D, it was that bad - imo.

Kthulhu wrote:
At any rate, I think the success or failure of D&D Next depends far less on the actual rules, but more on the level of support that WotC provides for it. That was their major failing for 4E...the support for the system has been exceedingly minimal, almost since it came out. Not everyone is going to jump on the DDI bandwagon, and for those that didn't, the support was damn near nonexistent. I can't really comment on what the support WITH DDI was like, because I was never a 4E guy. I'm not saying they have to support a given setting as much as Paizo is supporting Golarion (I personally think that Golarion could actually stand to have it's support scaled back somewhat...I don't think that 12 Player Companion books + 12 Campaign Setting books per year is needed)...but they should offer more than a setting book and a single token module which seemed to be the 4E standard.

I agree with everything there - except asking Paizo to scale back it's output; I can never have too much quality material to chose from.

The clearly stated 4e policy of fluff-lite (excuse the term) was the main reason I haven't bought a D&D book in years. It has been a catastrophic error imo.

5e needs setting detail by the barrel load to thrive! A return to love of setting and detail.

There is a difference this time to way back though isn't there?

WOTC clearly think so and were concerned enough to drop 4e quicker than a Frenchman's trousers.

This time it isn't just a small, ultimately insignificant, percentage of the audience who felt the new edition wasn't what they expected or wanted from D&D.

I haven't bought a wotc published book since the 4e core books, and I used to buy half a dozen to a dozen a year. I'm not not buying because of some doctrinal philosophy, I'd buy a book if I picked it up and it contained stuff I wanted, but every time I pick up a 4e book it is clearly 'not for me'. I'm a miner, I rarely use published books whole cloth, but I do love mining them for fluff nuggets, ideas, good new monsters, etc etc - wotc's stuff over recent years just does not appeal to me.

I'm curious to see what they do with 5e, and most importantly how they support it. But if they continue into oblivion, well I haven't been buying their stuff for a coupla years now anyway, so no change there.

On name/brand recognition of PF, or other D&D type rpgs, or any other rpgs come to that; I don't believe that's that big a deal.

People who've only vaguely heard of D&D and curiously seek it out to play will simply be pointed toward PF (or whatever) and told 'D&D itself is no longer published, however don't worry this here is D&D in literally all but name'.

If D&D falls (man we've come a long way in a few years haven't we, for even Scott to be seriously discussing this!), it will make zero difference to me. Indeed, it may make other companies shift their rpg output away from tabletop mini combat, setting light, loads of extra rulebooks, type game supplements and back towards setting rich supplements that I prefer. So it could even be a win from my point of view.

I always thought the best way to play a Who campaign was for the pcs to be humans (possibly from different historical eras - possibly not) who somehow come into possession of a TARDIS, with some kind of automated AI (?) teaching them (badly) how to use it thinking they're it's actual new (Time Lord) owners.

Gives you freedom, you can have Time Lord remnants as long term foes (trying to get the TARDIS back), and no need for one player to be king of the hill at the expense of everyone else.

No, you misunderstand, I don't only dislike 'save the world literally' plotlines at 'low levels', I dislike them in principle (at any 'level'). They don't ring true to me (usually).

I can buy someone is evil, but 'suicidally evil and capable of destroying the world' ... nah. Why would they want to? What do they gain by that?

There are a very few possibles, but by and large, destroying the world doesn't work for me.

Personally I almost never use 'end of the world' plots - I don't really believe in them. My gameworld has a lot going on in it and most bad guys want to live in the world too, destroying it isn't particularly sensible for anyone.

The only AP I've played (and am still quite early doors) is Kingmaker ported into my homebrew world (using my preferred BRP system) and I've tinkered with it quite a bit and will be adding greatly to it, it will change a LOT as time goes by, to better fit it into my game world and preferred style of play.

I own most of the other APs mind you, but I just tend to mine them for ideas - which you shouldn't regard as somehow disparaging or a sign I don't like them. I do. I just don't like setting off on a very long campaign having everything pretty much mapped out - I find campaigns work better growing at their own pace and in directions suggested by how things play out. The Paizo APs are extremely good adventures, full of great ideas, they are well worth the money, but yeah ... generally speaking playing them all the way through more or less as written isn't for me.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The argument between railroad and open world games is a tricky one. I tend to believe the best way to play is somewhere between the two extremes, as with most things in life.

As a GM I strive to avoid railroading, but truly open world gaming either requires tons of work (much of which won't be used), or no work beyond random tables.

I don't personally classify a campaign having some story thread running through it as railroading. Railroading to me is forcing the pcs not only to follow a broadly detailed storyline, but also how they follow it, and yes having invisible 'it actually doesn't matter what you do' plots going on behind the screen. There's nothing worse as a player imo to feel like nothing you do makes any difference - I even had a GM once who had a mechanic that wouldn't allow us to suicide our pcs to get out of his damn 'story'.

Naturally, good GMs are good at covering up the mechanics of the campaign, I've used monsters I expected the pcs to fight at one location in a completely different location, when they missed them first time. They don't know that, so they don't care.

I hate time limit adventures personally, they often go hand in hand with railroading. You MUST go there and do this, and you must do it in this amount of time. Heck, how about you just run my pc for me then?

It's a fine line. I do like a detailed setting and story, truly open settings often lack direction ...

Jerry Wright 307 wrote:

Nobody really ripped into basic (or AD&D) the way people rip into the modern editions. They just didn't buy whichever, and kept to themselves.

Of course, there wasn't an internet back then. When people argued, they had to pretty much do it face-to-face. And people are a lot more civil when they're denied the anonymity of the internet. :)

That's true, though also the cold text on the internet can suck all charm out of a statement that would raise a chuckle face to face, but get's taken as some kind of massive insult online.

Face to face arguments over editions tend to end in; 'okay let's play something else we both like'. There are plenty of games out there after all.

Tbh I thought the ad with the dragon taking a dump on 'grognards' was the only one that actually seemed genuinely aimed at people who liked previous iterations of the game - and that was just a bit lame. A bad ad.

Certainly not the cause of my ongoing mistrust of wotc to 'get it right'.

Jerry Wright 307 wrote:
I've always thought most of the unarmed combat stuff was needlessly complicated, grappling included.

Yeah me too, plenty of reasons for disliking 4e and wotc in my book, but the advertising was just inept rather than malign imo.

bugleyman wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:

The hardest part about being a fan of Paizo is having to reconcile being a part of the Paizo fanbase.

Starglyte wrote:

Its the main reason I stopped buying Paizo products a few months back. Would come here to see when the pirate and Numerian stuff was coming and get nothing but 4E/WOTC bashing...even in threads located in other sections of this board. There are better places to spend my money.

If that exchange doesn't turn some Paizo heads then something is seriously wrong.

Rubbish. 4e threads here concerned with specific modules never get flame posts, or '4e bashing' posts - show me an example or two? They tend to be brief threads, but quiet at least.

Threads discussing the future (however limited) of D&D are a different ball game, that's a subject you don't need to like or play 4e in order to reasonably contribute to. Naturally that leads to clashes of opinion.

As to the alledged difficulties of being a fan of Paizo ... what utter rot! I can honestly say I have never experienced any negative reaction, of any kind whatsoever, for stating I like Paizo PF products.

Gorbacz wrote:
So, I was kind of right. It's a love letter to 1E/2E fans with bits and pieces from 3E and 4E thrown in. I guess that's the most sensible thing for WotC to do: target all those OSRIC/C&C/S&W folks who don't have a single, strong brand behind them. This ruleset will have a fanbase without having to go head-on against PF.

Hm, if you're right, that seems a bit pointless to me.

I actually think only a truly new system that allowed you to play D&D only better will be interesting to a broad spread of players now. Rehashing rules and rejigging a tad may win some curiosity/nostalgia purchases early doors, but I doubt it'll make the big swing back wotc clearly want/need.

I may be wrong of course, we'll see, but trying to please everyone as they seem to be won't work imo. People who like 3.5e have PF, people who like 1e have 1e, the four or five guys here who like 4e ( ;-) ) have 4e.

It's not easy to see what they could do - other than going balls out and maybe ... just maybe ... addressing some of the things that have been shakey through all the editions; Levels, AC, and HPs for example.

Laurefindel wrote:
houstonderek wrote:

I think people forget that D&D isn't nearly in the public eye like it was in the '80s. Most people don't give a crap about D&D. The tabletop RPG hobby is niche now, not a huge fad like it was. A healthy D&D isn't nearly as important to the hobby as it was thirty years ago.

If Hasbro shelves the brand it isn't going to hurt the hobby much.

I agree with houstonderek here.

D&D crash will hurt the collective gamer community's ego and nostalgia, but not the market or the hobby

On the contrary, the vacuum left by D&D can allow for many indie/small market games to really take off, and the hobby could see a multitude of new games.


I tend to agree, though I suspect games store owners (a thin herd these days due to other means of buying books) rely on D&D sales quite a bit.

Thorkull wrote:

One of the biggest benefits of the OGL and 3E was that it brought back a lot of players that had spun off into other game systems, thus re-uniting the player base. For an inherently social game (like any RPG), the bigger the pool of players, the better the hobby does overall. One of the stated goals of the OGL and 3E was to re-unify the player base and get a lot of lapsed players (such as myself) back into D&D as opposed to one of the other game systems out there.

If the D&D brand fails, then which will unite the players? On the other hand, the fragmentation caused by the 4E launch has largely wiped away the gains in this direction made by 3E and the OGL, so it's not such a big deal anymore. This, in my opinion, is one of the great failures of 4E -- more than any mechanics issues. The launch of 4E took a largely unified 3E player base and broke it up into very polarized camps.

It doesn't matter whether you're a 3E/PF or 4E fan, this segmentation of the market hurt everyone as play opportunities decreased for everyone.

A little bit perhaps, but not a great deal in my own personal experience. There are more games than just D&D and PF out there, and the two groups I game with are just as interested in playing many of those as PF.

Groups have never been 'united' in my part of the world (the home counties), with player groups scattered rather like points of light in a sea of night, usually unaware of quite local and close other groups.

The idea that D&D is some kind of universal system we all play is extremely out of date. It was dated before 4e came out, it's positively antique these days.

MicMan wrote:

But now it seems to me that trying to please everyone will be the downfall of 5e, as the 4e fans will see "too much oldschool deadweight" and the 3e/PF fans still say that "this is not D&D".

Seems like a loose/loose scenario.

That's been my belief for how things will play out since day one of hearing about 5e tbh. I just don't see how they're going to reconcile both camps, and suspect they'll end up pleasing no-one (well except for a dwindling handful of folks who'd buy literally anything put out by wotc and call it gold).

But hey, we'll see, maybe they'll pull off a miracle...

2 people marked this as a favorite.

PF's success isn't just (or necessarily even primarily) due to it's rules imo, it's also due to the brilliant and prolific support materials; it's monthly AP books, it's modules, the extremely faithfully and well detailed and supported setting. I don't even use the PF rules, but I buy stacks of PF sourcebooks.

4e saw not the barest shadow of such support, I think 5e will require a change of attitude away from under-detailed and bland (imo) fluff.

3 people marked this as a favorite.


Monte leaving only increases my previous hunch 5e will not reverse the damage done to WOTC's customer base by 4e. People who love 4e will, I suspect, cry 5e 'goes backwards' (4vengers are very doctrinal, they talk about 4e like a religion, or philosophical movement), while the other side in the recently ended war (my side) will see too much of 4e in it.

There has been no real acceptance from WOTC that 4e failed, so I doubt 5e will mend any bridges.

Mind you, I'm not bothered, 5e's success or not makes no odds to me one way or t'other tbh.

(My game of choice these last few years has firmly been BRP. Though I buy and respect Paizo's PF products, as they are easy to convert and have that essential traditional feel.)

WOTC trying to catch a slice of the massive WoW buck with 4e was not a bad idea. It made perfect business sense.

I think where people tend to have problems was how they did it. You aren't going to get WoW players to play a tabletop rpg by trying to replicate how WoW plays. You may as well just keep playing WoW in that case. What they should have done was focus upon and market to the WoW crowd what a tabletop rpg does BETTER than any computer rpg. Of course that probably isn't just minis based combat...

Jezred wrote:

I have helped make six characters, and once you get the hang of such it goes pretty fast. We start our campaign this Thursday. I plan to post details on my blog. Here is the Prologue Post.

I look forward to running the game and writing about it.

Sounds like it'll be fun.

You may not care btw, but the Sindarin name of your party's elf should more properly read;

Eruveldir (assuming he's going for 'Friend of Eru/God' Eru+meldir), with u as the last letter of the first compound, it changes the first letter m of the second to a v. I personally prefer Eruvellon for the same meaning - using 'mellon' for friend, but that's just personal preference.

This site is very useful for showing the basic rules (though it has a limited vocabulary);

The merp maps are amongst the best ever made for an rpg.

Urd is on the Fenlon continental map - 1600/Fenlon_small_ME.bmp

Hard to see at this definition, but go to the top of the map, there is an island with a red lava symbol in the middle of a bay, east of that is a forested region - Urd is marked at the centre of that.

You've always been able to find almost any rpg book available for download somewhere online and still can. I couldn't say that represents an increase in piracy, but it does make wotc's pdf policy seem pointless and silly.

Diffan wrote:
Rockheimr 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.

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.

Actually, I think WotC is just tired of the BS and crying. Really, when you read D&D forums and other places that discuss D&D (specifically) 9/10 there will be multiple anti-4E or hate-hasbro threads and, honestly, enough is enough. I firmly believe they're just tired defending a game they developed and enjoy to people who love to hate. This whole D&D:next is designed to give the players the game the players want (hence modularity). Want a highly tactical game? Here are some rules. Want a strong story element with little fuss with mechanics? Here's a few less rules. Want to make character creation indepth and unique? Here are some modular rules for ya. Want characters that are 1-dimensional with the mechanics and enjoy simplicity? Here are some rules that don't use other rules. That way, someone can't say "WotC killed the Fighter" or "Wizards are just blasters now!" or "Wow, why do Rogues suck so much?" or "Gee, Rangers really have NO direction...

WOTC don't make big business decisions for such vague and emotional reasons as there are lots of nasty comments about a 'game they love' on the net. If it was still selling like chilled lager at an oasis they wouldn't give a hoot for what someone was saying an a web forum - and rightly not.

They are a business. They have made a business decision.

I agree though with the last bit of your post, they clearly are trying to appeal to both perceived sides of the divide. The question really is ... will they succeed in doing so? (It's a tall order after all.)

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.

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.

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.

I too write my own adventures, but I am always on the watch for stuff to mine from published books. It's the single, sole reason I buy gaming books tbh, I have no need or wish for new rules.

arkady_v wrote:

To me, the major failure of 4E was in the fluff. Both 4E and Pathfinder have major flaws (my opinion) in game play.

Where Paizo and WotC are different are that WotC failed to produce any decent modules or a cool world (or, at least, in the first 2 years, after that I gave up because my gamer friends gave up). In fact, they seemingly intentionally AVOIDED producing cool settings and adventures.

Paizo has an awesome world with tons of amazing adventures.

It shouldn't be a mystery as to why Pathfinder is succeeding and 4E is dying.

I agree, they did have a stated anti-deep fluff policy ('no fluff beyond that pc's could be quickly told in play' or something like that iirc) and it was a major factor in 4e's failure if you ask me.

What worries me ... well okay, it doesn't 'worry me' ... but I have yet to see any sign they have moved away from that. Everything seems to be about the rules, often to levels of absurdity, but rules are far from everything. I'd have still bought 4e setting books and adventures if they'd had great, detailed, imaginative fluff in them - despite loathing the game system itself with a firey passion.

If they don't address the anti-fluff policy of the 4e era - the policy that smashed cherished settings into paste, and gave us such memorable settings as ... 'the points of light world' - then I suspect 5e will go the same way as 4th - no matter how amazing the rules.

I used to use 3e monsters with some serial numbers quickly filed off in my 2e game - it presented me no major problems (iirc I just ignored the big plus numbers on hps and damage - and then ran with it).

I certainly didn't need to scrap the whole stat block and start from scratch.

That aside I don't believe there was anything like as big a difference between 1e, 2e, and 3e, as there was between 3e (and all that went before) and 4e. Love it, or hate it, 4e was a radical change and was in no way back-compatible.

Sure, and there's nothing wrong with being smart. Indeed as a GM it's essential. Believe me, I've been playing with one player since we were 12, a loong time ago, so he can spot my moves if I'm not super-poker-faced. It's always a great feeling on slipping one past his guard - he has developed almost supernatural abilities in spotting traps and GM-snares if I'm not careful.

I'm not saying I give my players an easy ride.

I'm saying 'hard, but fair'.

I used to fudge in favour too, but I do now think that diminishes the pc's successes. Better to let the bones roll, if someone dies, then it was a good day to die.

EDIT - I don't actually class - letting the players weakenesses catch them out as 'railroading'. They don't 'have' to fall for the trap, so they ain't on rails. Railroading is when, whatever you try or want to do as a player, the GM won't allow it and forces you, even against your will onto a set path.

Not sure if it classes as 'fantasy' or 'horror', but I just watched Guillermo del Torro's 'Don't be afraid of the Dark' - and was blown away.

I had no expectations of it, indeed I'd not heard of it till tonight, but I just put it on at a whim and ... wow, this is how jinxkin should be played in D&D/PF.

No humour, all horror. Very cool. There are some great scenes. If you haven't seen it, I strongly recommend it.

My players forced me to take down my GM-screen a few years back btw, in a player revolt ;-), so I roll all my rolls unshielded as a GM these days. So I don't get away with any fudging, like I used to. This works both ways of course, but I can see why my players called for it.

Why should a GM get to fudge rolls at a whim. It's a game, let the dice fall where they may.

Oh sure, I'm not advocating slavish rules mongering, or worse yet rules lawyering, just that I prefer rpgs to a joint effort rather than the GM forcing pcs around 'his story', 'his way', like they were rats in a maze. Rules do help with that, used right they help ground the game, they also can take the subjectivity out of stuff like 'did I convince the guard to look behind himself', and if you're lucky and play a good system can even encourage roleplaying - without reducing stuff to GM's decision.

Mind you, I do like a good story in there too. I just think the middle way through these issues is best - don't stamp on pcs with fiat if they take the story in an unexpected direction, or kill your pet npc or whatever. Roll with it, make up a new better, bigger npc, often the unexpected is as much fun for the GM as the players.

GM fiat is only as good as the GM. It can work fine, but if you get a tyrant it's a licence to basically railroad pcs to where the GM wants them. (I suffered for a year recently under a dictatorial GM, and eventually left the game because I didn't feel he played fair. I usually GM.)

I like the world to work the same for everyone - pcs and npcs. The rules are there ultimately to make things fair, as a player they can be a defence as well as a potential limiting factor. But if the GM can just over-rule anything he chooses without good cause it can ruin the whole game.

Getting ahead of the GM's plans is one of the pleasures of roleplaying, doing unexpected things, or being very lucky with the dice, these should not be ignored by the GM 'because it's not what I wanted them to do'.

Rule changes and new rules are best worked out and shared/agreed before play, rather than during in my experience.

bugleyman wrote:

You know what would be awesome? If we split a few more hairs and argue some more about whether 4E was a failure. I'm sure both someone in this thread is just that close to proving forever that his opinion is the correct one...

Now you're getting with the program. ;-)

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kip84 wrote:

@Rockheimer: Yes incoporating your point into a Monty Python sketch makes your point true... No wait?

And there was me trying to make with the funny. Let normal *very serious business* resume.

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Man walks into a game shop carrying 4e corebooks.

"Hello, I wish to register a complaint."

Guy behind the counter;

- "Sorry we're closing for lunch."

"Never mind about that my lad, I wish to complain about this edition of D&D I purchased not a year and a harf ago from this very FLGS."

- "Oh yeah, 4e, what's wrong wiv it?"

"I'll tell you what's wrong with it. It's dead, that's what wrong with it."

- "No, no, it's a great success, din' ya know, being outperformed in certain markets is no indicator of failure induced death."

"Look my lad, I know a failed edition when I see one and I'm looking at one right now."

- "No, no, remarkable edition 4e ain't it? Got beautiful balance 'int it?"

"The balance don't enter into it ... it's stone dead."

- "No, no, it's quite normal for editions to be renewed within 3 or 4 years - look at -erm- some wargames."

"Look my lad, I've had just about enough of this, this edition is definitely deceased ... and when I bought this edition not a year and a harf ago, you assured me it's lack of movement from the shelves was just anecdotal evidence and therefore meaningless."

- "Nah, wotc are just trying to expand it's success, by -erm- broadening it's appeal."

"Broadening it's appeal? What kind of talk is that? Look, why did it fall flat at the table the moment I got it home."

- "Yer 4e's made for a slower pace of game, beautiful edition, lovely balance ain't it?"

"Look matey, this edition is. No. More. It has ceased to be. It's expired and gone to meet it's maker. This is a late edition. It's a stiff. Bereft of live, it rests in peace. If you hadn't propped it up on the shelf it'd be pushing up daisies. It's run down the curtain and joined the choir invisible. This is an ex-edition."

- "Well ... I suppose I'd better replace it then."

"To get anything done in this field you have to complain till you're blue in the face."

Robert Hawkshaw wrote:

Alias had Jack Bristow, Arvin Sloan and Irina Derevko. So far, the only character getting near that is the Warden. Sam Neil hasn't delivered yet.

PS - alias was the bomb.

I did love Alias too, right up to the end ... buuut, like Lost and BSG imho, they didn't have a good explanation ready for the BIG SECRET (in Alias's case - how was Rambaldi able to be so technologically advanced so long ago).

Setting up and keeping a good mystery going is one thing, but if there's no well worked out core to that mystery you are doomed to ultimately being disappointing and at the least killing any rewatchability long term.

I loved Lost for example, but after that ending you couldn't get me to rewatch a single ep if you paid me.

It's not just the implausibility of his situation - that's arguable agreed - but that the actor himself just doesn't convince me he is as smart as the character is meant to be.

The actor did an okay job as Hurley ... but Hurley was a bit of a dope. I just don't buy him as a genius and I don't think the show is doing a good job of showing him as such either.

Re why they're following Sam Neill's character despite his lack of openess - well that won't change. This kind of show will continue to drip feed you the stuff you actually want to know. It's a trick that's getting real old imo, and after Lost and BSG, relying on big secrets to keep people watching requires good answers to be ready. Personally I doubt there'll be much behind the curtain here either.

1 to 50 of 295 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>