mousey's page

Paizo customer service, this order was made on 31 Aug. Till date, the order hasn't been shipped nor processed. Today is Sep 18. I didn't receive a word of explanation nor feedback.

I'm tired of waiting and having to endure this - cancel the order immediately.

I'm actually quite happy that WoTC made D&D 5E the way they did. I've read through the playtest twice (first time through I was too excited to see the truth) and realized that there are too much of what I do not like. So why am I happy? I can save up my money on other things as I am definitely not buying a single item from 5E if they carry on in this mode. Thanx WoTC! :)

Blah! Deleted my other posts after I read the wizard's cantrip ability. "At-will" ability!!! This really left such a bad taste in my mouth. Why will the wizard bother with a dagger or staff (unless he is using it as a walking stick) if he can throw magic missiles each round?!
I think I will stay away if more of such rules creep in...

PS: Why can't they rely on something like magical energies or something? Or possibly exchange their health for more magical energies when the level-based energies ran out?

Agree on your last remark (still penning the last portion on tomorrow's game) about my previous post. Like I said, I formed a pre-conceived notion of what you wrote and your underlying meaning, whether it is with intended sarcasm or merely your writing sytle, without knowing you (again, "oh internet" in my own context). However, when I read Jerry's posting, I realized where I had gone wrong.

So I do agree it is "...plenty rude and ignorant...". Do pardon my remark if it wasn't your intent to insinuate. It was uncalled for.

Cheers!

deinol wrote:

mousey wrote:

Scott & Josh, are these remarks necessary or merely an opportunity for a under the belt attack as a form of retaliation? Speaks volume on your personalities.

Probably not. On the other hand it is hard to respond to your points if we can't make sense of them. Coherent sentences would help.

Exactly. It's not a "below the belt attack" because frankly, you're an internet stranger to me. I have no reason to attack you. You could be the coolest kid on the block for all I know, and you know nothing about me from one post asking you to type like a rational person.

But it's a major pet peeve of mine when people try and make persuasive arguments, while typing in internet shorthand, 1337 speak, or god forbid, CAPS.

This hobby revolves reading books and reading comprehension, so suffice to say, please do what you can to make your posts at least legible.

Sure. See you around in Paizo forum then.

Diffan, I originally planned as promised share more insights into my opinion of what is my take on d&d (actually went through my old d&d materials and did some research into 4e and came up with a list and a scenario) but after writing the prior posting, I decided "what the heck". I am not going to change anything and neither will anyone see things any differently. True. As stated by Scott "Oh internet" - brings the world closer yet so far apart.

You have your background, history and experience with RP gaming. Your feelings for D&D revolves around how you felt then and how it evolved over time till 4E. That shapes how you now perceive 4E. I cannot argue with that and neither can I refute that.

I live half-way around the world from you (in Asia) since I presume you're from the States. Yet strangely we're bonded here by d&d. Whether it is 1e or 3e or 4e or d&d next, that in itself is something.

Peace.

Jerry, I've read postings by others typed with more abbreviation and structured with less sense. I spent the better part of last night writing on the forum, preparing for a gaming session this weekend and had an important management meeting in the early morning. I was tired and in a hurry to complete that posting on an ipad hence the possible poorly structured and abbreviated form of sentencing. Did Scott or Josh know about all this before making those remarks? Did they also realize that English isn't my mother/first language? Whether it is a rude way to snide or as you said, "request for clarity", I'll leave it as it is. I've spent enough time on this forum (as I did in 2008) that which I can spent on work (to get me more money to spend on things that I like) or things that I enjoy.

As for the playtest and request to participate in the "formulation" of 5E, maybe I'll pass too. Everyone in it will come with too much baggage from the past and it'll be more brinestone and fire.

Anyway, cheerio :)

Scott & Josh, are these remarks necessary or merely an opportunity for a under the belt attack as a form of retaliation? Speaks volume on your personalities.

Sure Steve. I have no problem conversing with u :)

I only know for sure their (wotc or hasbro) decision is always based foremost on profit, whether direct (net profit) or indirect (marketing campaign to imrpove image which ultimately improves profit)

Although i do wonder if the corporate culture of wotc may have changed over the years to be more "hasbro-like" than before. After all, turnover is high. People who were there prior to hasbro takeover are mostly gone (i surmise). Corporate vision and KPI are set by parent company too.

Anyway, my two cents worth on this.

Ah, good question. Let me carefully formulate it as it will also indirectly answer what i will like to see in 5e (but of course i do see that 5e can cover almost all without jeopadizing any).

A few things in mind that i don't like with the 4e system (i emphasize system):
(a) balancing the classes too much especially healing surge
(b) combat system; if character hits, do x damage, push 2 squares, healing
(c) where is my halfling?
(d) unlimited zapping for wizards? No. I prefer my wizard to have only 1 spell n a few cantrips at level 1 n rely on my fighter to survive. I will instead shine in solving brainy problems or arcane expertise.
(e) new races n classes as core
(f) feeling of wham! Bang! Kazaa!

I need more time to formulate more examples n also what i like and want in d&d.

Diffan, we have exchanged several postings. I just hope that u understand i have nothing against 4e. Again, i own all the 4e d&d boardgames n they are my favorites thus far. The rules play well in a adventure crawl with minis, battle tiles n encounter emphasis. There is no dm (as it is cooperativ against a system dm) n we (myself n friends) really enjoyed ourselves. But when we want a adventure that grows into epic proportion (eg. Dragonlance or lord of the rings or playing a rendition of malazan book of the fallen or pathfinder's second darkness or something homebrew theme) with more focus on the flavor, we go for 2e or 3.5 or pf or gurps.

Ps: i didn't say pf promotes rp but the system doesn't overshadow it.

Diffan, then what is the difference between 2e/3e n 4e if u said everthing else (like adventuring, wooing barmaid which i like etc) is the same? The game system right?

On the same premise, can gurp system do high adventure? Woo barmaid? Can wh rpg? Can pf? If yes, does it mean they are also d&d? So are u making this high and mighty statement that d&d equates rp?

Guys, pls run through this logical thinking n u will know what i mean.

mousey wrote:

In a corporate world, the wotc CEO will have to answer to hasbro mgt.

Sure, but not about something as relatively insignificant as D&D. I know nothing about Hasbro's relationship with WoTC, but I know something about corporations and their subsidiaries. Beyond the core brands (ie magic) and outside some broad directives, I suspect WoTC are given a pretty free rein. Hasbro will be more likely to fire the WoTC executives than step in and dictate how a brand should be managed.

Quote:

Saw some emails debating on who takes the call. Doesn't matter. Maybe hasbro don't directly pull the trigger but they are the people at the top. They are responsible.

Kite Windsocks was claiming that Hasbro are paying such close attention to D&D that they are aware of the paizo playtest of pathfinder. You may want to ascribe some "ultimate authority" to Hasbro management (though why stop there? Isn't it the Hasbro shareholders fault, taking your argument to its logical conclusion?) but do you really think they rang WoTC and said "Hey this open playtest thing worked a treat! You'd better do that too!"

It just doesn't ring true. Again, I'm not claiming any insider knowledge and it might be true, but Hasbro management must be extremely busy if they're micromanaging all their insignificant brands to that extent.

Steve, that's not what i meant. I work in one of the biggest bank in US. Of course the ceo don't get his "hands dirty" when people said hasbro, they are talking who takes responsibility. Anyway, not important. Let's just use d&d franchise owners or DFO then :)

This is what i suggested for 5E to some folks (not quoting names). Have a common base then branch out the systems (including character advancement, combat, situation handling, magic points) into the following branches:
(a) boardgame/MMO gameplay (4E rules actually really suit boardgaming as i mentioned in several other postings)
(b) basic rpg (for those who wants freer rein n quick take-up. Good for introducing new players n novice or simply just like basic or 1e style)
(c) advance rpg (enuf said. The power rpgers. Weapon skills, encumbrance, dual, power feats, gongfu, etc. Yet it must be similarly modular like 2e)
(d) mass scale combat (something like runewars or old d&d battle system)
(e) progression variants as add on fluffs (running a realm like soccer manager, immortals)

A few examples of common base framework(i wrote more than what i am saying here):
(1) the theme, realm, npc characters, history, etc
(2) races
(3) classes (which should be dictated by the theme)
(4) points (or whatever u want to call it) system to influence (a) - (e)
(5) base combat (eg. initiative, decide action, hit, damage, react)
(6) base character advancement

With that, wotc can still keep 4E players happy (play (a) and buy (a) materials), old school rpgers like me can play or buy (b), (c) or (e) (although i like the old battle system too :p)

Wargamers will go for (d)

People who has the purchasing power or like to be complete can buy all! :)

How is it doable? Definitely. I had given some case scenarios but they will have to hire me to take it further. Let's see if they consider it :)

Kite Windsocks wrote:

Ok I believe that WOTC where going for "The One to Rule Them All" with 4th edition and failed. They haven’t printed any consistent RPG material in a good 6 months and won’t release their numbers to compete with Pathfinder (lol). If you like 4th then play it, myself I’m sticking with Pathfinder! But I do believe that WOTC was trying to capture WOW (classes) and magic players (the power cards) with all the similarities. As for asking for the input from players, Hasbro (yes them, there in charge have the first & last say) has seen the success of Pathfinders playtest and wants the same. They could make or break themselves with this method; they are going to have to listen to fans. The one thing I think everyone has forgotten is WOTC tried to go completely digital with a membership fee, (complete BS just my opinion. WOW! WOW!) This is not what D&D fans wanted as shown in there 4th E sales (books still sitting on selves in many store in my area).

I dont really agree with any of these sentences (other than sharing your view that digital delivery of RPGs is unfortunate). However, the idea that Hasbro management has any view as to the open playtest of Pathfinder is absurd.

D&D is insignificant to Hasbro - they bought WoTC for magic (and it's doing well for them). The threat to D&D is far more likely to come from WoTC's CEO (if the division underperforms too badly) than from 'on high'.

In a corporate world, the wotc CEO will have to answer to hasbro mgt.

Saw some emails debating on who takes the call. Doesn't matter. Maybe hasbro don't directly pull the trigger but they are the people at the top. They are responsible.

Craig Mercer wrote:

A complaint about a game not living up to a preference is a prouduct failure.

I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with you. In retail, a product failure is a return. As long as the product was sold and didn't come back, it was a sale, no matter what the customer says about it.

WotC kept a close eye on this sort of customer review, I'm sure. But I'm afraid it didn't happen. In retail, you don't protest by not buying. You protest by buying and returning the product. Enough of that, and the manufacturer pulls the product from the shelves. You can ignore bad ratings. You can't ignore returned product.

I bought 4E. I don't play it because it isn't for me, and I'm not likely to ever play it. But it's still sitting on my shelf right now. I'm sure there are a lot of disappointed people like me out there. But WotC never heard about it.

Jerry, this return policy doesn't apply in most of the countries unless there is a defect and normally within 3-7 days.

Guys, don't you think the the premise of the tool gravitate the play? Of course we can rp on anything. Its not the sole property of d&d. Even with any system, it is possible to rp. It is even possible with no system!

Yet we're talking about whether 4e plays like d&d and whether it skew towards rp or mmo or card game or something else. The designers themselves claimed mmo, card, computer, board as this is how they designed it. They wanted to do something different from all previous d&d. They want to do something called their own. They want to break away from the old d&d. These are in the articles and even mentioned in nytimes report n even in wizards. This is a moot point to argue. My goodness, what is the contention point here? Are u guys still trying to beat a confirmed dead horse? How can it still be d&d feel although it is labelled as one and use its logo? Man, its like saying that cos he is germany, then he is a nazi or if the person is a muslim then he must be a terrorist. Of course not!

Yes possibly u play 4E with rp. Possibly u bring rp to your table. Good. U circumvent the designers' main intent and "enhance" it to suit your needs but there is no denying that that wasn't the main objective for 4E. The creators themselves said it. Sheesh.

Enough said. Peace.

If 5E is going to be anything designed as a battlemat combat system like 4E, with healing surges, push back 2 squares, hit n heal, perfect balance with little differentiation, unlimited spell zaps/per encounter/daily, then sorry, this customer is staying away. Bring back modular like basic n advance. Progressive learning. It can be that straight forward as in basic (a few stats, few classes, less feats, skills, etc) or advanced (weapon speed,encumbrance,criticals, etc). Bring back the flavor. That's my main grip.

mousey wrote:

Bugleyman, why do u think its the mgt of 4E instead of what the system did to the "d&d game"?

Not that you asked me, but I remain convinced that Hasbro took a look at all the third party 3E material that was being published, felt entitled to the profits, and demanded WotC release a non-OGL D&D.

4E is a very workable system, but it would have been much wiser to release 3E and 4E concurrently for a year or two, just to see if there was a shared market for the two system.

Once again, nothing against 4E as a game system, but the market research looked to be on the level of, "Those nerds love D&D, they'd never buy anything else!"

Agree :)

mousey wrote:

Bugleyman, why do u think its the mgt of 4E instead of what the system did to the "d&d game"?

I think I've kinda talked covered the why, but as far as the what:

1. Killing the OGL. This was basically WotC telling the industry "you're either with us, or you're against us -- and even if you're with us, you're going to get the scraps."
2. Making DDI a closed system. WotC could have easily made APIs to share the DDI with third parties...instead they froze them out. Scraps.
3. Killing Dungeon and Dragon. They could have extended the license and let the mags continue into 4E. I'm not sure Pathfinder RPG would exist if they hadn't killed the mags (though I'm sure there are many here much more qualified to address that than I am).
4. Pulling PDFs -- this was more of an annoyance than a real factor, but it was just another jab at paying customers.
5. And yes, the marketing. While I don't find it blatantly insulting, it definitely had a "we know best" tone that obviously rubbed many people the wrong way.

Add it all up and I don't think the mechanical contents of 4E really mattered all that much. I don't dispute that many people prefer the mechanics of 3/3.5/PF, but that has always been the case upon edition changes. If the industry went, most players would have gone. As it turns out, WotC tried to cut everyone else out. In an OGL world, that was extremely foolish.

Sorry my friend. I don't like 4E not cos they kill the OGL. TSR didn't give OGL but i still like 1e, 2e, etc.

Again, how did wotc mismanage 4E? I'm confused cos majority here who don't play 4E or tried and gave up didn't like the system. Again, i clarify that don't like doesn't mean it is technically a poor game.

Ps: mismanage can be: (a) don't produce pdf copies of their books, (b) came up with DDI, (c) kill dragon n dungeon magazines, (d) poor marketing (e) others

Bugleyman, why do u think its the mgt of 4E instead of what the system did to the "d&d game"?

Is that a name for an angle? :)

It is still 4E sub-forum in a paizo WEBSITE showing as a hot topic (see that i didn't jump on it immediately) as the FUTURE OF D&D :)

Anyway, your earlier post in response to Anthony doesn't seem to echo your respect for PF but to each its own.

Going by your chevy volt example, of course it is still a chevy, in name (just like 4E is still called d&d 4E right?) carrying the logo? Yes but its a failure. Why? Engine performance? Fuel efficiency? Space? Price? Handling? You tell me. Chevy said it. U buy it?

Going by your logic, why wotc is giving up on d&d 4E. they said it lost the feel (of d&d and they meant the old versions which was there till 3.5). You tell me. Wotc said it. U buy it?

I am not saying 4E sucks. I owned it. I played it. It's well balance, action packed, easy to take up ( by the way, i still own all the d&d 4e boardgames n enjoy playing it; so maybe 4E is good on a boardgame n its ranked quite highly in boardgamegeek) n with loads of new themes n fluffs but it lost the feel. Its d&d - well its called that with its logo but it doesn't feel like the previous editions. The people wotc is trying to woo thinks so n now they think (or at least admitting now) so too.

So tell me, isn't that the case? Even though u don't think so. Good. But this is the future of d&d (pun intended on the thread title). Enough said. I got a PF game to prepare for this weekend. Peace.

Edit: on the boardgames portion :)

These "they" happen to be the designers of your 4E. Obviously, u didn't read those articles. If i am the maker of a model of car, who has more right to say it is a bad car? I think obviously u are not seeing the picture here. Moreover, i had played 4E and was a ddi subscriber. I ran 4E campaigns n games. Finally i call it quits. i threw away all my materials. Its not hearsay. Your presumption shows how your train of thought Is formed..sad. I, like many, gave our views long ago. Now the designers of 4E themselves proved those to be correct.

I think u need to consider examining your logic. Are u saying a liar cannot ever possibly tell a truth? Then based on your "logical" analysis, either you haven't told a lie before or else everything u said or will say is a lie. Good grief.

PS: why are u posting in a paizo forum? It seems your opinion of paizo's pathfinder isn't that positive. Anyway, your choice n freedom.

mousey wrote:

Diffan, again you're not facing facts. Did you read the articles that started this post? If 4E is d&d, it will not spark a 5E so soon and the direction it may take (again read the articles or those in nytimes or in wizard site itself. Don't confine yourself). Admit it. Moreover, what you said isn't d&d. It's role playing adventure. Don't confine your perception of role playing just around d&d. Widen your perception and try other systems. But what makes d&d, well d&d is its uniqueness in its flavor. All previous editions managed to retain it but not 4E. If you can't see it, well and good but hasbro sees it. The new designers see it. Hence the change.

What Steve said is also true. There are a lot of materials in paizo that is good and definitely not free. Try it. Widen your perspective.

Sorry but there is no right or wrong answer here as the question "What is D&D?" varies from just about everyone. There isn't a definite terms, though your suggesion makes it sound like there is a time frame that sorta "marks" the franchise for some reason. I wouldn't call Pathfinder "D&D" because....well it doesn't use the name for one. It doesn't have Beholders or Mindflayers for another. But I'm sure people would say it IS D&D (or another form thereof). But really, who cares at this point? I still love 4E and all the sweeping ideas they made for that system and the freedom it's given me as a player AND DM (yay, no more always LG Paladins!!)

As for Pathfinder's material, I'll start buying it when they start releasing stuff more to my liking such as a version of the Tome of Battle, which is a supplement I won't play without when running 3E/v3.5. I just have an immense library of 3.5 supplements at my disposal that I can just as easily find infomation, rules, and flavor therein without purchasing "Paizo's Version".

Fair enough diffan. Once again, no one (at least not me) is saying 4E is a "bad" game. Even the articles didn't mention it except it states the hows it was conceived (as modern gaming like computer, mmo, breaking away from original mould, etc). Agree too that there is no right or wrong to the feel but definitely, majority felt that 4E isn't. Hasbro felt it too (after it hurts their wallets) n wishes to change it. 2008 to 2011. It didn't suddenly dawn on them. It must be hurting them for at least a year or two or more. But like i mentioned, this thread is started by those articles. These are facts (unless the articles are fabricated but it is mentioned in wizards too) which points to the reasons why they are replacing 4E with something else. You can stay with 4E, go with pf or start your journey in 5E. Doesn't matter. Your choice.

mousey wrote:

But it is not D&D.

Well now, would you like to test that?

Presumably no-one is likely to contend that 1st edition AD&D isn't D&D. Take a module written for that, with pre-generated characters, and play through it recording what you did, what dice rolls were made, and what the results were.

Then play the module again, using 2e AD&D or B/E D&D, performing the same actions and using the same dice rolls. Are the results the same or very similar? Then you probably have a game that's very much like D&D in play.

Now repeat for 3e and/or 4e. Some of the die rolls will need conversion from d100 to d20 (divide by 5, round all fractions up) and some will change from roll low to roll high. Characters will need some conversion. When you perform the same actions, and resolve them with the appropriately converted die rolls, are the results the same or very similar? If they aren't, then you have a game that doesn't play very much like D&D. That may have the name, but is not D&D.

I am prepared to make a small wager, btw. 3e, after about 3rd level, will deviate far more from the results obtained in 1e than 4e does.

Bluenose, have you the articles that started this thread? If not, pls read it first. Remember you're posting in this thread n the context of it.

Btw, what you wrote as an example...well n good. Let's go with your train of thought. 4E: The warrior hits an opponent n hits, damage n healing surge. Move back opponent 2 squares. 1E? 2E? 3E? How does it work?

Going back to the articles, and of course the context of this thread, they are talking about d&d as the feel. Articles said it was lost in 4E. Agreed by giants in the rpg realm n also lead designer of past (of 4E) n present (soon to be 5E) and also many of the original d&d loyalists. Read the article in nytimes. Read the articles in wizards.

Once again, no one says 4E is a bad game. I also agree that the definition of "flop" differs. But it is not d&d. For goodness sake, before u disagree again, read the articles. I said it, many said it, wizards designers admitted to it. Period.

And these aren't flaming posts. Its to understand why 5E is needed (and it is a fact hasbro is admitting it too) n how it will be. Hence the future of d&d as the title of this thread.

Steve, i agree with you and i am a subscriber to almost all products of pathfinder...until i can't buy any more hardcopies of the materials. The place i stay with my wife isn't that big and i need to share my allocated space with d&d minis, warhammer fantasy minis, 40k minis, 1E, 2E, 3.5 d&d stuff and many more. Now i buy only the electronic versions. The fluffs and extra rules are good although certain elements are still not to my expectation (eg some pathfinder tales books)

The irony, missed both here and on other forums, is that without WotC, and in particular their OGL, there would be NO Pathfinder, period.

Whether you love them or hate them, and indirectly as it may have been, Wizards gave many of the folks here at Paizo their start, and let them develop the skills they'd need to eventually create Pathfinder.

And, of course, without Wizards releasing the OGL then even if these people tried to form a company like Paizo, there'd be far less demand for an all-new d12 based fantasy system (or whatever) than there is for their OGL-compatible Pathfinder game that also happens to have picked up the 3/3.5e crowd that didn't move on to D&D 4e.

But, at it's core, Pathfinder only exists because of Wizards, and the decisions they made (again, consciously and accidentally). Had there been no OGL, had Wizards not allowed everyone to play in their sandbox, then Pathfinder would not be here as strong as it is today--in fact, it might not be here at all.

So, while I do love and support Paizo/Pathfinder, and I'm not "going away" from it any time soon, I started roleplaying with D&D and while I'm neither a rabid fan nor a zealous hater, I am a gamer, and as such I'm looking forward to seeing how 5e develops.

I've played D&D since forever, I play both Pathfinder and 4e now, and each edition has changed the game. Some changes I liked, some I didn't, but so it goes. Since I'm not the one creating the perfect game just for me, I'll deal with what's offered and go from there.

Hasbro is a company, a corporate entity that bought out a failing TSR and owns the rights to all of the IP that was D&D. For good or ill, it's theirs, and they bought it to make a profit, and a game, and they made both 3/3.5 and 4e, and soon 5e. Whether any of it ever meets the $50M or $100M mark that Hasbro expects remains to be seen, but have no doubt that just like any company, they bought the rights expecting to make a profit or else they wouldn't have bothered in the first place.

Call their...

Vslmar, majority here are not missing the point.. So what if hasbro/wotc gave the OGL in the first place? That OGL is for 3.5. Paizo used it as base to create pathfinder. So? We're not bashing hasbro here but that they are doing a 5E. Why and where it will go. There are people here who are claiming they are pandering to the needs of us old schools who don't like 4E. Ok. We are the ones who left buying 4E that cost them the market shares. Ok. But just cos they gave the OGL we need to remain loyal? C'mon.

Agree that hasbro Wants a profit. They know 4E missed the mark and announced 5E this soon. What does that imply?

mousey wrote:

Many many more..read it. Doesn't mean it isn't fun. Doesn't mean it isn't balanced. Doesn't mean that there aren't people who like it. But it is not D&D.

Well it is, because it has the name and everything. The problem is many people think D&D is about the rules, the sacred cows, the number of classes in the PHB or the Races or auto-hit Magic Missile or some perverse notion that wizards need to be able to bend time and space and Fighters should sit in their castle and retire after 11th level or blah-blah-blah. It's not, it's about roleplaying a character with your friends. It's about rolling dice and imagining your fighting a huge dragon. It's about falling down a spike pit trap because you failed your Perception check even though the corridor looked fine. THAT's what D&D is. It transcends rules. It transcends editions. 4E did everything other editons of D&D were capable of doing. People just didn't like the way it was done. Just because I despite the very existance of AD&D/2E and think it's a pile of garbage mechanics doesn't mean I don't think it's D&D, because it is.

It didn't sell for a multitude of reasons, which I feel a fraction of it was due to it's rules. I wish they had put more thought into the Marketing aspect, understanding that many people are WAAAY too passionate about this than they were and could not accept critical options of the, then, current system. Fuel that fire with the sweeping changes to the Forgotten Realms and it's not looking pretty right from the get-go.

But what's done is done. They're a company that makes stuff I like and there's nothing really to say after that. They'll either produce things that I like or they won't. Heck, I doubt I've given Pathfinder more than a few bucks because everything is free online, so why would I? Pathfinder practically fueled my desire to give WotC money because I HAD to pay for that, and Pathfinder doesn't. It's been a pretty sweet world, IMO.

Diffan, again you're not facing facts. Did you read the articles that started this post? If 4E is d&d, it will not spark a 5E so soon and the direction it may take (again read the articles or those in nytimes or in wizard site itself. Don't confine yourself). Admit it. Moreover, what you said isn't d&d. It's role playing adventure. Don't confine your perception of role playing just around d&d. Widen your perception and try other systems. But what makes d&d, well d&d is its uniqueness in its flavor. All previous editions managed to retain it but not 4E. If you can't see it, well and good but hasbro sees it. The new designers see it. Hence the change.

What Steve said is also true. There are a lot of materials in paizo that is good and definitely not free. Try it. Widen your perspective.

Enough said. Please read the article linked as "present". It portrays the current state and hence paints the canvas why there is a need for 5E. Read it and understand why it "flopped"

Andy wants to give it a modern "computer" game.

Young designers out to prove themselves.

OGL? Not just that.

Many giants of d&d not understanding why 4E is made as it is.

Many many more..read it. Doesn't mean it isn't fun. Doesn't mean it isn't balanced. Doesn't mean that there aren't people who like it. But it is not D&D.

I wouldn't call a rpg that was #1 best selling for years and still #2 after pathfinder took the top spot a flop.

Once again, i repeat that the facts speaks for itself. They are killing 4E for 5E. Find some old posts when Wizards release 4E. They claimed it is the best of all versions and it is here to stay for many many years! Yet it is going to be replaced soon after what, 3-4 years? Is it a last minute decision or are the signs there since year 1 or 2? Moreover, do you think 5E will take 5 years more to release? If so, they will not announce it now...why impact their sales now? I suspect it is round the corner barring hiccups in their construction.

As i mentioned to Scott, to those who like the game, of course its not a flop. But most importantly to the community as a whole and to hasbro, it is. Moreover, who says it is number 2? In terms of players base? Hasbro don't care. In terms of sales? Hasbro don't care. ROI? Yes. We are here on this thread talking about the future of D&D. Hence, why 5E and what needs to be there. If hasbro retains 4E flavor, then in that perspective, it will definitely still be a flop. Of course, there are still many possibilities of flopping (angering the 4E base, not recapturing the market share, etc).

The amazing thing is, many other companies of rpg manage to churn out systems with less and yet capture significant share. In order for them to survive, hasbro/wotc needs number 1 and by a significant amount or else, improve productivity. Do more with less. Remember the d&d franchise isn't just us rpger. Its more than that. Much much more.

mousey wrote:

Scott, your opinions differs from Elton (and mine) but one fact remains, 4E flop and they are making 5E.

I think your definition of "flop" also differs from mine.

Quote:

And before you say its hasbro appetite for profit or shrinking market, then don't cos otherwise, hasbro will not venture into 5E. They will either sell or kill the franchise.

Hasbro is not known for doing either of those things. They don't sell properties. The most likely scenario in which they don't continue to produce D&D material is that the property is shelved for a decade and then revived.

Scott, possibly our definition differs. I owned 4E too (before i tossed everything away). 4E is definitely balanced more than 3.5E. It's "fun" ( but for me, left a strange taste after a game) n plot is no less than before. There's much in it but isn't what we detractors are looking for. There's where it "flopped". It lost too much market (and market is still there otherwise hasbro will can it). Before you say otherwise, hasbro is KNOWN for doing this. Obviously you're not aware of the other products from them. If they don't sell, they kill it. Revive? Right. After there is interest again. Think transformer. What about heroscape? D&D minis game?

Anyway, what i'm saying is if hasbro don't think that the market is still there, they will do any of the above except come out with a 5E.

For those who enjoys 4E, it's good but there isn't enough for them to carry on 4E. Yet they know the market is still there so they are not putting it out or in hibernation but coming out with 5E to take back more share. As for support previous editions, c'mon. There will be a major compromise. If thr team can do it and still attract back the majority, good for them. Otherwise, good luck to them. And if i am in hasbro's mgt, i will cut losses then n do the necessary.

mousey wrote:

Scott, your opinions differs from Elton (and mine) but one fact remains, 4E flop and they are making 5E. And before you say its hasbro appetite for profit or shrinking market, then don't cos otherwise, hasbro will not venture into 5E. They will either sell or kill the franchise.

From the Escapist:

"The announcement of a new D&D doesn't mean that 4th edition is now a lame duck. Wizards recognizes that the game still has a very loyal following, and pledges to continue supporting 4th edition during the testing cycle of the new edition and beyond. "We plan to continue offering people access to tools like the D&D Character Builder and the D&D Monster Builder to support 4th edition," Mearls said. "We're also exploring ideas for conversion tools so that some of the 4th edition characters and content will be playable with the next edition." In other words, Wizards vows it's not replacing 4th edition, but merely adding another layer of rules that will cater to the people unhappy with the latest edition's changes."

So while it's not directly being supported, it might be somehow in some form with 5E. I'm happy about this news. So perhaps it's not really a failure if they're still going to support it in some fashion.

Diffan, that's marketing talk. They said almost the same when announcing for 4E. Just wait n see. It's the same when i (and many others) said when 4E is out....it will not last long.

I will preface this by noting that your last two posts have made your position much clearer.

Elton wrote:

I couldn't figure out how to play the kind of character I wanted to play unless I reversed engineered a couple of things in the game. 4th Edition was overly weighted towards the Adventurer. I wanted rules for a host of non-adventuring professions and to prove it, I wanted to build a Noble.

Dungeons & Dragons is about adventuring. It would be sort of insane if they didn't make a game heavily weighted towards the adventurer.

And before you try, no. It's about adventuring.

Quote:

The closest I got to was creating a Warlord that didn't use his powers. I never got the chance to play him because everyone thought I was breaking the game. I wasn't, I tried to push it in a direction I wanted it to go (Versatility.)

I'm not sure why anyone thought you were breaking the game by purposefully sucking. That seems weird. Maybe they just thought you were being a bad party member because you refused to use your actual abilities.

Quote:

I quickly found out it was impossible given the rule set.

I don't see how playing a noble is impossible. I played a half-elf warlock who was part of a noble line for a good 20 levels.

What you're saying is simply false. You can play a noble. I daresay some of us have done it. You are also going to be playing an adventurer, however, because Dungeons & Dragons is a game about adventuring.

Quote:

If I successfully pushed 4th were I wanted it to go, it wouldn't be 4th anymore. To play D&D 4th ed is to play a rigid rules set.

4e is far more flexible than you give it credit for. Your insistence that you cannot play a noble despite the fact that people do it all the time is proof of this.

Quote:

If have a blacksmith NPC, I want rules to play that Blacksmith NPC as a DM.

Why is it important to you, as a DM, that you have rules for playing the blacksmith? You are the DM. You are free to have...

Scott, your opinions differs from Elton (and mine) but one fact remains, 4E flop and they are making 5E. And before you say its hasbro appetite for profit or shrinking market, then don't cos otherwise, hasbro will not venture into 5E. They will either sell or kill the franchise.

I think the article reads as the WOTC guys coming up with some pretty odd reasons for 4e's low sales over the past couple of years. (Or as a friend of mine put it; 'Moving markers for armies that no longer exist around maps in their bunker.')

As someone mentions upthread Mearls seems to say 4e was written for the unimaginative. (I can't read his words any other way.) Hardly tactful.

Ryan Dancey says tabletop rpgs are dead or dying. ...Not clear why a 'VP of rpgs' would say that, seems like publicly saying you are no longer needed to do your job?

They toss and turn with comments about 'eras of rpg decadence'(!?), and how 'perfectly balanced' 4e is, like they are priests of a dying faith. Seriously guys, if the rpg industry is dying, how come smaller rpg companies such as Paizo are booming?

Tabletop rpgs are not dying, D&D (4e) is. It's that simple. I'll let you in on a secret, you don't need to wrack your brains over roleplaying philosophies, just make genuinely good roleplaying products. I only don't buy WOTC products these days because each and every time I idly pick one up to browse in the shop they don't appeal to me - they seem shallow, lacking in colour, setting detail, and flavour, to me they seem to lack interesting stories, characters, and settings. Even the art style doesn't appeal to me.

WOTC does of course have a major problem with the inevitable 5e, if they go back they would not only have to eat major crow and backtread on almost every press statement they ever made about 4e, but they'd piss off the very vocal pro-4e lobby and possibly lose customers there ... but if they press ahead with a version of 4e upgraded a bit, then it would be unlikely to reverse the apparent downward plummet of their sales figures, as those of us who hate 4e as an rpg system would be unlikely to embrace a somewhat amended version of it. Tricky.

Personally I think their only chance to turn it around is try something rather more radical. Try to create a new system that is as good at non-combat stuff as...

Spot on Rockhemir :)

Read through all 3 parts of the essay, and a bunch of the comments there, which have better insights than the article in some cases.

I think D&D is suffering from a similar plight as Hollywood TV/movies - lots of people still enjoy watching movies, but not as many people are paying for tickets to keep up with costs. Lots of people are playing D&D - any edition, or more likely an amalgam of editions - but not enough people are buying books/subscriptions to keep up the cost of doing business (or maybe even worse, the cost of keeping Hasbro shareholders happy).

Unlike the big-budget movies though, people can write their own new/expanded material for D&D and use it as long as they like, for free, without paying WotC a dime. If you can stay under the lawyers' radar, you can even distribute it to friends & family, much like the looseleaf-modules of old. It's a very corporate-unfriendly scenario, compounded by (illegal) availability of the entire PDF-catalog and (legal) third-party published material. The folks who cry for the end of Wizards' ownership/control of D&D would probably be happy with that scenario, and even 4e players like me could carry on without any new WotC products.

But the kick in the ass comes from the lack of mass-marketing and support for big-money investments in things like conventions, video games, and TV shows/movies that bring in totally new players. No matter how cool the hobby, you need new people (preferably kids and/or parents) to keep it going. Existing players will certainly be able to get their game on, and bring in some new people by direct persuasion. But that's not enough to keep up with normal attrition.

Having a well-known "big player" in the mix helps indies, too, in its own way - where do you think indie game devs get trained? When they were kids, just scratching together ideas for their first-ever RPG character, what game system did they play? Or even if they never played RAW-D&D, how many of them had D&D-ish ideas about how elves, dwarves and humans meet in taverns...

No. If the market ain't there, wotc will not even bother with 5E. They will just scrap the franchise or hasbro will sell it off. Actaully, market is still there despite what u had cited but they are not getting enough of it. Don't forget, the d&d franchise isn't restricted to pen-&-paper rpf but boardgames, card games, computer games, movies, many many more. Except 4E is so below par that it is simply not kicking in for them.

No worries. I'll purchase the PDF as and when it's necessary and good.

Hi Paizo CS,

Although I am somewhat semi-retired from the RPG world, I'll still keen to read up on the materials and dream of better times.

Hence I'm still interested to purchase your wonderful and enriching publications but my wife is not receptive on my piled up books. Moreover, I wish to go green and cut-back on my carbon footprint.

In a nutshell, is there a PDF only based subscription with some subscription discount on it?

If there isn't such a scheme, please dream something up as I believe it will attract the bees like honey :)

Cheerio!

Regards,
Nicholas

Just curious (and hopeful) before I place the order, will I get the PDF copy too if I purchase the hardcover?

I would hope in the above case, that the DM had a) created this particular effect with the skills of the characters in mind, perused the skills chapter and thought of results for use of Insight, Perception, Arcana etc etc

A Skill Challenge would fit the bill nicely. Dis-spelling the illusion - that's less roleplaying and more mechanics.

Remember we're on the topic of spell usage otherwise there's many other ways of tackling this.

How about protection from evil? Detect undead? Speak with undead? (the living will not be able to answer) stinking cloud?

How many abilities or powers in 4th ed allows such option?

Dispelling isn't any less rp too if its done with the story in mind (Raistlin used featherfall to float down the inn's back...the whole encounter was rp-ed)

mousey wrote:

I'll still play it as new challenges are my cup of tea. However, its too different from any other rpgs. D&D in itself is somewhat less rp intensive as compared to some other gaming systems and 4th ed just pushed it further into the abyssal pits of rp.

The problem with this assertion is that it's entirely subjective. Two weeks ago my 4e game had a session where not a single dice was rolled. Compare that with a MLWM or Heroquest or any other narratavist game. In other words, your games of D&D might have less roleplaying, but D&D in and of itself does not prevent roleplaying any more than any other game.

CPEvilref, any gaming system can be rp-ed. There's nothing subjective about it. I'm not anti-4th ed neither.

However, its merely a statement how supportive a game system is of it. Hack & Slash can be rp-ed. Troll and Tunnel can be rp-ed. Even minaiture wargaming systems like warhammer can be rp-ed (go! go! my minions of darkness! Destroy those manlings of the empire! I seek redress for the death of my katrina!!) but how much of the gamerules supports rp?

An analogy: A fork can scoop just like a spoon but how well geared is it and how much can you scoop it? And how much work you need to put in to scoop? And it also depends on what you want to scoop (ice-cream works with fork too but to a lesser degree)

Ask these questions: How much of the 4th ed game system u used when no dice was rolled? No combat was done? How much? So how much of the abilities/feats was used? None? So how much of your previous game requires 4th ed and is based on that?

And I think you missed the whole point of my posting. I've quoted one example whereby RP is drummed down in 4th ed as compared to the previous edition, missing non-combat spells (ritual as a watered down alternative had been relegated to a mere 5 pages)

Many are considering that streamlining the gameplay is something that 4th ed had improved on in terms of combat yet in several dragon articles, that's the opposite of the designers intentions (read article of dragon 364).

Anyway, I'm not saying that 4th is no fun. As of now, I'm still having my kicks out of it but as a experienced gamer (and many others), 4th ed game system and rules lean towards combat and powers and after a while, it may lose its luster as mentioned by this thread's title.

Question: You and your party are in a tower of undead but an illusion casted by a necromancer of great power had granted all the inhabitants a decaying undead look and feel. There's a group of villagers held hostaged and charmed. Now there's 3 groups of these "undeads" hunkering towards you. What will you do?

Answer: Use any of the 4th ed rule system to rp this.

Note to WoTC: Put back more meat into non-combat orientation and combine the best of 3.5 with 4th.

I've wrote something like that in a thread in another website and I'm writing this again.

Firstly, let me clarify that I'm no newbie rpg gamer nor any youngster. I can easily rank myself amongst the mature gamers in the world. Hence, this isn't any "I hate 4th ed" thingie. Actually, i've collected everything 4th ed so far yet also games in 3.5 ed and even D&D basic (kind of a retro gaming with my many many years gaming buddies) and occasionally AD&D (even other rpg gamings).

Back to the topic. I've played one 4th ed game so far as a DM and understand me when I said that its too combat oriented. I've read through "Rescue at Rivenroar" and "Thunderspire and it kinda enforced that thinking.

Let's be objective here. Previous D&D editions had evolved over the years but this 4th ed is drastically different. WoTC must have realized its losing its shine over the internet gaming and multiple online player games over console. Hence, it needs something that doesn't take forever to play, almost no brainer, full of actions and very combat intensive (they didn't deny that too).

I'm not going to write this without supporting this point. Here's one very clear-cut evidence on this.

Spells.

If anyone takes a comparison between all spells from D&D basic to D&D 3.5 and the spells (or power or abilities) in 4th Ed, you'll notice that these spells are missing:

Cleric 1st level:
bless water
detect [alignment]
detect undead
deathwatch
hide from undead
protection from [alignment]

Cleric 2nd level:
augury
calm emotions
consecrate
delay poison
eagle's splendor
make whole
owl's wisdom
status
undetectable alignment
zone of truth

Cleric 3rd level:
create food and water
daylight
glyph of warding
locate object
magic circle against [alignment]
obscure object
speak with dead
stone shape
water breathing
water walk

There's some much more to name here and no, rituals don't cover enough of it at all.

These spells are mostly not combat oriented and its these spells that are removed from 4th ed. If they're not combat oriented, they're there to assist in role-playing.

Even utility powers/abilities are so geared towards combat...sigh...maybe 4th ed will be called hack & slash.

I'll still play it as new challenges are my cup of tea. However, its too different from any other rpgs. D&D in itself is somewhat less rp intensive as compared to some other gaming systems and 4th ed just pushed it further into the abyssal pits of rp.

4th ed losing its luster? I've just did one game and I'll try some more. As a game, its still fine but if compared to previous D&D, it doesn't shine at all. In terms of RP, its possibly the last nail in the RP coffin.

Seriously though,

It's a hot, dry day in a tiny village just out of reach of the Keep in the Borderlands. A handful of peasant farmers are going about their daily routine, tilling dusty, clay-like fields hoping for rain.

Meanwhile, 100 or so yards out of the village proper 4 teenagers are hiding from their farmer-parents and chores, splashing in the water-hole.

Then hordes of orcs and ogres charge down to the village to begin slaughtering the women, raping the men and burning the village. The peasants grab some pitch forks, wood-chopping axes and the farming polearm to try to fight off the raiders but it all seems hopeless.

The teenagers frantically put their clothes back on and begin to charge to their families and home. But arrive too late. They grab a few weapons from the bodies of orcs and try to fight, only to flee from overwhelming numbers all too soon. Hiding in the hills minutes later, bruised and bloody they vow to follow the raiders and seek revenge.

The 4 teenagers, peasant farmers yesterday, angry adventurers today, follow the raiders deep in the wilderness to their cavern stronghold. Once inside they go area by area, quietly killing as they go. As one fight gets particularly messy one of the teenagers gets slashed across the back, blood spewing everywhere. Another has her leg smashed and is bleeding from a head wound.

Then, one of the teens swings the sword he took from an orc only hours earlier and screems

HEALING SURGE ACTIVATE! and all four teens' wounds are healed.

The end.

-W. E. Ray

This is nice...subtle meanings laced with sarcarsm :)

Has it shipped? Did I miss the boat???!! :O

I need Xanesha!!!!!!

When will this cool piece be back in stock??!!!??? I can't breath...need skinsaw man!!! Help!!!!!!!!!!!

Any dates on when these really super cool minis are back in stock?? Paizo dudes and duchesses? Help?

mousey wrote:

Anyway, what's your definition of RP? Maybe we're going around in circles cos our definition differs :)

My definition of roleplaying is pretending to be someone else.

Well, that fits my bill too.

A diff between 3rd ed and 4th ed is at-will abilities (its these differences that define 4th ed right?). Does at-will ability help you to pretend to be someone else? If so, then for you (bold and underline the words "for you") 4th ed supports RP.

But what is my case thus far? Does it gravitate towards RP? Will a new player feel that at-will abilities help him to RP or to give him more power to achieve something? Why? Conversely, does the absence of at-will abilities restrict/reduce your RP? If not, how can it support RP?

Anyway, there's no end to this. Let's just say that rules are there to define our RP. Too little and its mayhem and too much it becomes focused on the rules and players become powerplaying (PP) instead of roleplaying (RP).

mousey wrote:

That's when we explore the intent of 4th ed...is it there to support RP or to do a cover up for a lack of RP?

All roleplaying games lack roleplaying - roleplaying is all in the use of the game and not in the game itself.

True :) but does the game want to support RP?

Anyway, what's your definition of RP? Maybe we're going around in circles cos our definition differs :)

So I guess how 4th Ed is perceived is every person's medicine or poison to RP. I've no issue with that :)

To some, more definition is good. To others, indiana jones didn't have cleave nor at-will magic missile but its always high adventure for him (in the temple of doom, at one stage, he didn't even have his trusty whip and gun) through his ingenuity and luck (a possible 5th ed stat?)

example 2 is more 4th ed and some loves it. No prob. Example 3 is neither 2nd, 3rd nor 4th. The rules supported RP when its required. Not intrusive but supportive.

WoTC publicised reasons for 4th ed is to fix broken rules, streamline gameplay, balance up play across all levels (hence there's always some spells for a 1st level wizard to cast) and add more oomph into play.

So does RP has a place in 4th ed? The only thing RP needs is "pretend"/"imagine" and any rule system is there to support it but not to replace it. So what do I think about 4th ed and RP? I believe that the 4th Ed rules does not gravitate or lean towards RP. It seeks to use flashy powers to replace it or to cover up the lack of it.

So is it bad? Like what CWM said, some people love it. I've no quarrel with that.

4th Ed is neither bad nor broken (as far as I know now...). It just doesn't solve RP from the move.

mousey wrote:

Neither do i dispute that CWM...WoTC do what it needs to do and hence 4th ED. It's not bad and its not broken (thus far based on my limited play and knowledge after reading it extensively) but it doesn't solve the RP issue.

Question of this thread: Why do you think RP has no place in 4th Ed?

My answer: To clarify, its not a bad edition; kinda fun but it doesn't advocate RP. Players can still do RP (remember my motto, the only rule required for RP is "Pretend..." or imagine) but the rules do not gravitate towards RP.

Envy them? They're just making a living...just like in every industry of work :)

Based on your definition mousey, I'm not sure I'd say any edition of DnD (that I'm familiar with) really supported RPing. Which, of course, is a claim that many people hold to.

Is that close to your claim?

I've gamed for more than 25 years and started with the basic red box of D&D so I guess I can be in a position to comment right? :)

Anything can support RP. All you need is pretend/imagine, tell a story.

I started RP with only teddy bears and dolls and RP with my younger bro even before D&D (i guess nearly all kids can do that :>)

D&D was made to define a rule system for RP (hence its a RPG). So is D&D any good at it in all its incarnations? I guess it really depends on the designers intent...if it supports RP, then i guess it should be fine but if its there to replace the lack of RP, well then the thread speaks for itself.

Of course I can still tell a good story with 4th ed rules; what's to stop me right? I'm the player. I'm alive and the book is dead. The thread's question is whether RP has a place in 4th ed. That's when we explore the intent of 4th ed...is it there to support RP or to do a cover up for a lack of RP?