Tell Me Truly


4th Edition

251 to 300 of 370 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

Wow...

Liberty's Edge

I have no idea what firevalkyrie is talking about.

Not only is this NOT the most negative of boards wrt 4e., since the advent of 4e, this board is a whol hell of a lot less negative than some boards PRE-4e.
And I don't know what he's talking about James Jacobs or Erik Mona saying anything negative either. I read many of their posts, and I can't think of one. In fact, I would certainly remember one; none come to mind.
Another thing, any of these "betrayed friends" spoken of would probably call them on it, so I think they can take care of their own bidness.

Liberty's Edge

All I can guess is "if I'm whining about something, that's one thing, but if you're whining and I don't agree with you, you're a muckraker and you need to shut up and quit being negative. Or go over to Wizard's website..."

Sovereign Court Contributor

firevalkyrie wrote:
A bunch of paranoid delusional crap.
Sebastian wrote:
An awesome and appropriate smackdown.

Sebastian, I don't think I've ever said this, but while I occasionally find you heavy-handed, you frequently make my day. Like today.

Thanks!


Hey fire v -

Stay away from the WotC boards. If the Paizo boards make you upset, your brain would explode there. Heh.

Anyway - thanks for the entertaining Saturday night read.

Goodbye!


firevalkyrie wrote:

Because the theme of this thread is "be truthful," at this point, I'm going to option E: Screw Paizo.

A lot of the chatter on this board has made me rather irritable at Paizo. To be blunt, there's a TON of negativity going around, which Erik and James are doing a lot to contribute to.

That latter part is the thing that most troubles me. I consider loyalty to friends to be a paramount virtue, and a lot of the things that the two of them have said over the past several weeks, well, you have to look at it in a mighty specific light to find an angle that doesn't look like they're ripping on people they have in the past described as friends. Besides that, it is INCREDIBLY unprofessional. You're not representing your company well in any regard by saying those things on the company's own message boards. The tone on these boards has turned viciously negative and I doubt I'm the only customer who's turned away from them in disgust and said, "Well this is a company I'm going to think twice before giving my money to."

A friend of mine said that he had never heard of Pathfinder until I complained about the boards here and the rampant negativity. Guess what? That's a customer you guys lost before you even got him.

I've basically stopped reading the Paizo boards because I don't like the tone here, and if I keep reading them, I'm very likely to cancel my Pathfinder subscription after my free issues run out. The negativity here is grating on my nerves and making me think badly of the people who are posting here, and the fact that the publisher and a senior writer at the company are openly feeding it does not make me think well of the people who work there. So Paizo, as much as it pains me, at this point you're on notice: Shape the hell up, or I will take my business elsewhere.

Wow. I had no idea this thread had a magic portal to the realm of 4e-Fanboy-Kool-Aid-Drinkers!

First of all, regarding paragraphs #1-3 (ok, #1 is a sentence, but hey), flat-out BS. Paizo has been nothing but honest and objective regarding elements of the 4e announcement that have them optimistic and concerned. (FYI - Yes, you can combine optimism and concern when you're objective. It's not often done in Kool-Aid land, but you can do it.)

Paragraph #4. You can't lose something you never had. If it makes you feel any better though, I'll be showing Pathfinder to two of my friends that are DMs next week. If I can get them to subscribe, then Paizo will be +1 on the tally sheet. Sound fair?

Paragraph #5. While this whole post screams "Poster child for Internet troll", this closing paragraph earns the "worst negotiation tactic of the year" award. Do you really think that after falsely accusing Paizo staff, slamming basically everyone who doesn't agreed with your optimistic view of 4e, claiming you're abandoning the boards, and then telling Paizo to "shape the hell up", you're actually going to persuade anyone to agree with you?

While I have only discovered the quality of Paizo's work recently, I have been blown away by the professionalism exhibited by the staff on these boards, their love of the game, and their dedication to satisfying their customers. So I'll continue to buy from them for the forseeable future and even try to pick up some of the Dungeon APs. Hopefully, that will fill the void left by you should you choose to take your free issues elsewhere.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I'm impressed, there were almost 250 on-topic replies to what was an honest, no-spin question before the thread got derailed by FlameValkyrie.

BTW, as someone who had already replied as being in favor of and looking forward to 4E, I simply have not seen the sort of corporate backstabbing on the part of Paizo that FV has. Now I'll admit that there are lots of vocal anti-4E posters here who don't work for Paizo. However, I wouldn't see any benefit in silencing genuine debate.

I say "genuine debate" because I've actually seen some opinions and points posted in the 4E forum that I've noticed have gotten people on both sides and in the middle thinking. Simple trolling doesn't tend to change minds or sway opinions, it just enflames people.

On the bright side, it would seem that the 3E4evah, 4Epro and EditionX groups have been brought into agreement on at least one thing: we disagree with "option E". ;)

Now then could a moderator perhaps split this off-topic banter into a new topic and then merge it in at the end of the "Tell Me Truly Threadjackers" thread where it belongs?


Heathansson wrote:
And I don't know what he's talking about James Jacobs or Erik Mona saying anything negative either.

Here, not so much.

James' blog is pretty negative. Erik's is pretty mixed, somewhat staying neutral.


FireValkrie's well reasoned insights have really made me rethink the issue. I'm tempted to change my answer from C to B.
Damn, I'm suggestible.


I am predominantly B.

But if Paizo changes to 4E I'll come along with a minimum of grumbling.

And I agree with Steve Greer when he said, What?! to firevalkyrie.
I have never seen the things he/she was describing.

Scarab Sages

David Blizzard wrote:
Heathansson wrote:
And I don't know what he's talking about James Jacobs or Erik Mona saying anything negative either.

Here, not so much.

James' blog is pretty negative. Erik's is pretty mixed, somewhat staying neutral.

If you would David, Point me in the direction of this blog.

Tam


Tambryn wrote:

If you would David, Point me in the direction of this blog.

Tam

This David can help. ;)

Here ya go.

Liberty's Edge

David Blizzard wrote:
Heathansson wrote:
And I don't know what he's talking about James Jacobs or Erik Mona saying anything negative either.

Here, not so much.

James' blog is pretty negative. Erik's is pretty mixed, somewhat staying neutral.

Fine. I don't want to delve into Paizo fanboiism. I don't want to be a homer.

I read James Jacobs' blog, and I can see what you're saying. I want to say that I respect your opinion.

But I think there's a fine line between voicing legitimate concerns and being a muckraker, much less backstabbing your friends...
I don't see where that line has been crossed. I think it would absolutely HURT whatever anybody's trying to do if people (like James Jacobs) were to stifle any "negative feelings" they have to "support the cause."

Liberty's Edge

And, then I read Erik Mona's blog entry; I assume it's the one about the Great Wheel;...

I mean, I've never read either of these blog entries, ergo no "fanboi instruction," as you will, has influenced my opinion of the current state of affairs.

But I'm sure poured their hearts into Hords of the Abyss among other titles; to see the work nullified in a year's time...
I think anything they've said is pretty tame all things considered.

I think if I read a blog entry by Erik Mona saying, "WOW!!! The GREAT WHEEL is GOING AWAY!!! This is going to be FUUUUUUUUUUUUUN!" I'd be pretty certain that the veracity of such a statement was questionable.

Again, no backstabbing of lifelong colleagues. No alignment shifts. Hell, what I got from it was he was ticked in the morning, and by that afternoon he was over it.

Liberty's Edge

Oh, and as an aside, on Erik's blog, a few lines down, I liked the "Ming....Ming....Ming....NOT Ming" pictures. I too find the current Flash Gordon lacking. But in Sci Fi Channel's defence, I don't think they can reasonably perpetuate the "evil easterner//fu manchu" image invoked by the classic Ming the Merciless.
Erik's Blog

Liberty's Edge

firevalkyrie wrote:

Because the theme of this thread is "be truthful," at this point, I'm going to option E: Screw Paizo.

A lot of the chatter on this board has made me rather irritable at Paizo. To be blunt, there's a TON of negativity going around, which Erik and James are doing a lot to contribute to.

Sorry for the multipost barrage,....it's how my brain works...

I just want to say that I respect your opinion, even if I don't agree with it, and I guess I want to apologize for even responding to it in the first place, because the OP said he didn't want people jousting on this thread about anything.

That being said, and you were being perfectly honest about your opinion, I think it's bad form for me to even say anything counter to it; it's like an ambush or something. If you were asked for your opinion under those terms and you gave it, it's rude to respond to it.
So I apologize.


I'm starting a Savage Tide campaign next Sunday that will be my first foray into DM'ing 3.5 Generally the plan is to play the whole thing under 3.5. As cool as 4E sounds, everyone has a "wait and see" attitude about it. If it comes out and proves to be totally awesome, I suppose we can try to adjust everything accordingly.

I may also be DM'ing a second campaign soon following the Pathfinder AP, and I think that's going to be more interesting - I'm not sure if this has been brought up or not, but does Paizo intend to switch Pathfinder to 4E once the three core books are released?


Option B with some tinges of C

There is still so much possibility within the existing rule set that I’m loathe to ‘upgrade’ to 4e. Despite playing weekly for 4-5 hours my players lament that they can’t get to all the race/class/feat combinations that they’d like to explore. I too have a deep reservoir of campaign ideas and adventures that I’d like to run. While there undoubtedly will be some good ideas in 4e it doesn’t seem/feel to be a good return on investment. Eric also neatly summed up a core ‘emotional’ issue-WOTC’s lack of respect for past traditions. I’m far more willing to embrace new mechanics, like to change to 3/3.5, but the background/history alterations offend me. 4e also makes me concerned for the hobby as a whole. I can’t see how 4e will draw new players into the fold. No new player is going to say, “Finally they abolished the Great Wheel, now it’s the game I always was hoping for!” It seems foolish to risk alienating older core players. There are a finite number of people who are, or would be interested in this type of game, why needlessly fracture the player/customer base?


firevalkyrie wrote:

Because the theme of this thread is "be truthful," at this point, I'm going to option E: Screw Paizo.

A lot of the chatter on this board has made me rather irritable at Paizo. To be blunt, there's a TON of negativity going around, which Erik and James are doing a lot to contribute to.

That latter part is the thing that most troubles me. I consider loyalty to friends to be a paramount virtue, and a lot of the things that the two of them have said over the past several weeks, well, you have to look at it in a mighty specific light to find an angle that doesn't look like they're ripping on people they have in the past described as friends. Besides that, it is INCREDIBLY unprofessional. You're not representing your company well in any regard by saying those things on the company's own message boards. The tone on these boards has turned viciously negative and I doubt I'm the only customer who's turned away from them in disgust and said, "Well this is a company I'm going to think twice before giving my money to."

A friend of mine said that he had never heard of Pathfinder until I complained about the boards here and the rampant negativity. Guess what? That's a customer you guys lost before you even got him.

I've basically stopped reading the Paizo boards because I don't like the tone here, and if I keep reading them, I'm very likely to cancel my Pathfinder subscription after my free issues run out. The negativity here is grating on my nerves and making me think badly of the people who are posting here, and the fact that the publisher and a senior writer at the company are openly feeding it does not make me think well of the people who work there. So Paizo, as much as it pains me, at this point you're on notice: Shape the hell up, or I will take my business elsewhere.

What I think you are failing to grasp (in my humble opinion since I cannot read anyones mind) is that Erik and James are not critiquing the work of the game designers but the direction the company (WoTC) is taking D&D in. In the past both James and Erik have stated their faith in the abilities of the games designers at WoTC to design a great system. On the other hand, it seems that they, and many others on the boards, are unsure how many of the changes being made are driven by WoTC and not the designers. So far they have not provided any concrete reasons for making the changes that they are. My impression so far is that there are too many changes being driven forward or pushed on the designers by WoTC as opposed to an idea or sense that the game can be improved. That's my 2 cents.


*hands everyone a cookie*
Vote Darkside!


Krell wrote:

Eric also neatly summed up a core ‘emotional’ issue-WOTC’s lack of respect for past traditions. I’m far more willing to embrace new mechanics, like to change to 3/3.5, but the background/history alterations offend me. 4e also makes me concerned for the hobby as a whole. I can’t see how 4e will draw new players into the fold. No new player is going to say, “Finally they abolished the Great Wheel, now it’s the game I always was hoping for!” It seems foolish to risk alienating older core players. There are a finite number of people who are, or would be interested in this type of game, why needlessly fracture the player/customer base?

I had to check my alias list to see if you were one of them :) No, in all seriousness, you're making the argument I've made a few times on these boards, and I'm glad I'm not the only one thinking this way.

I would disagree on one point. I'm sure 4th ed. will bring in new players in a variety of ways. For example, some people just like to try something new. If they've been on the fence about playing D&D before b/c it was too "complex", maybe the allure of a simplified game will entice them. And existing players will now, more than ever (w/ the demise of Dragon & Dungeon), have the burden of bringing in new players. So I'm not worried about the state of the game from that perspective. But to our agreed-on point: why even risk losing older core players when you didn't need to?


BenS wrote:


I would disagree on one point. I'm sure 4th ed. will bring in new players in a variety of ways. For example, some people just like to try something new. If they've been on the fence about playing D&D before b/c it was too "complex", maybe the allure of a simplified game will entice them. And existing players will now, more than ever (w/ the demise of Dragon & Dungeon), have the burden of bringing in new players. So I'm not worried about the state of the game from that perspective. But to our agreed-on point: why even risk losing older core players when you didn't need to?

If we accept that recruitment of new players by existing players is the 'best/usual' route for expanding the player base the impact of people splintering over multiple editions can't be good for the health of the game. Based on an estimation culled from this poll that someone posted 20-25% indicate they won't move to 4e. New players that they recruit will be inducted into 3/3.5 and likely consider that to be 'D&D' rather than 4e. It seems that future growth of 4e can't help but be adversely impacted by people who continue to play 3/3.5.


I'm leaning very heavily towards B, but I'm trying to keep my mind open, so there's a smattering of C. So far, I'm not fond of most of what has been revealed about 4E, particularly the flavour changes. Sure, flavour is the easiest thing to change for my own games, but when that flavour is tied to mechanics (such as the succubus change), I might as well just stick with what I had before.

3.5 certainly does have its flaws, sure (although I still don't see the problem with grapple), but 4E seems to be doing more than just fixing those flaws. It's reinventing everything, which makes it extremely likely that it's just going to introduce brand new flaws.

I will likely pick up the the new Player's Handbook in case I ever play in someone else's 4th edition game. However, if I ever switch my own game over, it won't be for at least a year after 4E's release. I want time to see the long-term effects to the game.

Dark Archive

BenS wrote:
But to our agreed-on point: why even risk losing older core players when you didn't need to?

Why? Because they've taken that risk since they took over the reigns. WotC took that risk with 3e...then with 3.5e and you know what?

It paid off.

Besides, this isn't the only thing WotC has ever done that risked alienating players they didn't need too. Nor is it only a recent development or MO of theirs. Its just a matter of degrees.

It is funny to see the "I never thought they'd alienate me!" crowd getting in an uproar. Remember 7 months or so ago with the demise of the mags? It was predictions of doom and gloom and how WotC just run off a huge portion of their fans. Yet still the corporate machine drives on, sale likely remaining about the same, they are still the big kids on the block. Folks despise them but still race to their site to catch a glimpse of whats up.

So, we'll go through a year or so more of chest thumping and wild declarations. Then when some folks realize its hard to find a non-4e group, they'll quietly sit down and roll up a new character vowing not to tell anyone at the table their screen name out of fear of the dreaded Nelson "Hah-Hah!".

=P


DangerDwarf wrote:
BenS wrote:
But to our agreed-on point: why even risk losing older core players when you didn't need to?

Why? Because they've taken that risk since they took over the reigns. WotC took that risk with 3e...then with 3.5e and you know what?

It paid off.

I guess I'm not equating the 2nd/3.0-3.5 editions the same as 3rd/4th editions. There's no doubt the bulk of the changes were mechanical in the 1st instance, while now, they're talking about both mechanical and flavor changes. So it's a cumulative effect that I believe will prove a larger hurdle for them to overcome, to bring older ed. fans into the fold. And killing off the 2 print magazines will only add fuel to that fire; especially for the fence-sitters.

I don't want to add more to this here, as it's not really the purpose of this particular thread; I've had my vote/say earlier on, and I don't want to keep sidetracking Erik's stated intentions for the poll.


Erik Mona wrote:

Given what you know so far, are you planning to:

D) Other.

I'm gonna stick with whatever route paizo takes. Kudos Eric, you guys make the best products out there, in adventure quality, artwork and print quality. If you guys go 4th, so will I.

I have enough 3.5 crap to last me 3 lifetimes, but I just don't have the time to create advantures like I used to. Since I'll be relying on published products for adventures, chances are I'll convert to the new edition.....

...Unless of course they fail to make 4th edition available to third party publishers, in which case I'll stick to my 3.5 edition archives.


DangerDwarf wrote:

Why? Because they've taken that risk since they took over the reigns. WotC took that risk with 3e...then with 3.5e and you know what?

It paid off.

Huh? 3e was in response to a largely reviled edition that was losing gamers in sieves. One of the goals was to "win them back", not "replace them with new gamers". 3e is very faithful to the previous history and flavor of the game.

DangerDwarf wrote:
Besides, this isn't the only thing WotC has ever done that risked alienating players they didn't need too. Nor is it only a recent development or MO of theirs. Its just a matter of degrees.

No, but it is the greatest degree to which they've done it. And thanks to current technology, it's also the most visible alienation.

DangerDwarf wrote:
It is funny to see the "I never thought they'd alienate me!" crowd getting in an uproar. Remember 7 months or so ago with the demise of the mags? It was predictions of doom and gloom and how WotC just run off a huge portion of their fans. Yet still the corporate machine drives on, sale likely remaining about the same, they are still the big kids on the block. Folks despise them but still race to their site to catch a glimpse of whats up.

And those predictions seem even more appropriate today. How do we know the "machine drives on", when it isn't even possible to order the online mags yet?

DangerDwarf wrote:

So, we'll go through a year or so more of chest thumping and wild declarations. Then when some folks realize its hard to find a non-4e group, they'll quietly sit down and roll up a new character vowing not to tell anyone at the table their screen name out of fear of the dreaded Nelson "Hah-Hah!".

For some that will be the case. For many, not so much.

I'm looking forward to unleashing my own inner Nelson a few years down the road when 5e is announced with the goal of winning back all the alienated fanbase 4e lost.


firevalkyrie wrote:

Because the theme of this thread is "be truthful," at this point, I'm going to option E: Screw Paizo.

A lot of the chatter on this board has made me rather irritable at Paizo. To be blunt, there's a TON of negativity going around, which Erik and James are doing a lot to contribute to.

That latter part is the thing that most troubles me. I consider loyalty to friends to be a paramount virtue, and a lot of the things that the two of them have said over the past several weeks, well, you have to look at it in a mighty specific light to find an angle that doesn't look like they're ripping on people they have in the past described as friends. Besides that, it is INCREDIBLY unprofessional. You're not representing your company well in any regard by saying those things on the company's own message boards. The tone on these boards has turned viciously negative and I doubt I'm the only customer who's turned away from them in disgust and said, "Well this is a company I'm going to think twice before giving my money to."

A friend of mine said that he had never heard of Pathfinder until I complained about the boards here and the rampant negativity. Guess what? That's a customer you guys lost before you even got him.

I've basically stopped reading the Paizo boards because I don't like the tone here, and if I keep reading them, I'm very likely to cancel my Pathfinder subscription after my free issues run out. The negativity here is grating on my nerves and making me think badly of the people who are posting here, and the fact that the publisher and a senior writer at the company are openly feeding it does not make me think well of the people who work there. So Paizo, as much as it pains me, at this point you're on notice: Shape the hell up, or I will take my business elsewhere.

Why should you, as a consumer, even care whether Paizo and Wotc are friends? Do you care if Sony and Warner Brothers are friends? Does that impact your buying decision for your next DVD player or ticket to the next Batman movie?


firevalkyrie wrote:
"stuff"

No need to quote you as I'm not going to cover your "points". I'm trying to wrap my head around what you are trying to say. Are you saying that James, Eric, and the rest of the people at Paizo and everyone who uses the boards don't have a right to their own opinion? Or is it that the Paizo people took some gamers version of the Hippocratic Oath to never complain about whatever is being down with the D&D license? Is it the "they are friends with wotc"? I'm sure some of the people at paizo are friends with some of the people at wotc, I mean they have worked together and all that. How does that keep them from having their own feelings? They haven't made any personal attacks. I'm sure you will (if you bother to read this) call "fanboy" on me. I'm a fanboy of me, my game, and my group and what works best for us. Paizo has done nothing to go against that so far. Wotc... we'll we will wait and see in may. I'm looking forward to the new edition to see what they do. If it doesn't work for me, oh well, I'll find what I need somewhere.

I waited so long to reply. I told myself i wasnt going to, I just sometimes cant let things slide. If you were being honest then you wont see this, and if instead you were being a troll making inflammatory remarks then I guess you won. Weee!

(troll, inflammatory... ya get it, it's a joke son *Foghorn Leghorn voice*)

The Exchange

Taliesin Hoyle wrote:

I am ready for the next edition and am excited to see how the mechanics have been streamlined. I feel like WotC are bungling their marketing and are making serious missteps which are making gamers anxious instead of eager, and that once the new edition is out, many will see it as an inspired step forward for the hobby. Until then, it is terrible to see how awful the press is on this one and how misguided the attempts to drum up interest are.

Bring it on. I am ready for a jet of fresh air. Just put a competent spokesperson in charge.

Paizo has handled Pathfinder beautifully. Can't some of you explain to the fine folk over at 4 ed design that they are opening themselves to attacks of opportunity and are flat footed in the surprise round.

What part of their press has been bad? Other than the GenCon announcement being run by two people with little to no public speaking comfort/background I think they have done a great job of keeping us posted on what the plans are and what future might hold. The employee blogs for one are a huge step towards letting us in just a bit more on the process.

The Exchange

elvnsword wrote:
Erik Mona wrote:

Given what you know so far, are you planning to:

A) Convert! I am ready for a new D&D.

B) 3.5 or Bust! I'm sticking with the man what brought me.

C) We'll see. Need more information.

D) Other.

Please pick one. Feel free to elaborate, but please stick to one reply each for this thread. I'm not interested in fights or refutations of incorrect points or baiting or whatever.

I want to know how you, at this moment in time, feel about the idea of converting to a new edition of the game.

I expect that people's answers will change over time. This is not the last time I will ask this question, so we'll have a chance to gauge the issue as we go along.

So, given what you know so far, you plan to: _______________.

B. I will NEVER buy a 4.0 book, heck I was upset at the new layout of The Ruins of Castle Greyhawk, and Expidition to the Demonweb. I dispise the Book of Nine Swords feel and theme, and it seems to be what they want to go with. Genericizing the world, dropping all of the rich history and playstyle that has been D&D for the last 31 years is not the best business move, the folk at WotC are seemingly under pressure to make they're game more "anime" to appeal to the younger crowd. Heck if I wanted to play Anime games I would get on BESM d20, but I don't I play D&D!

3.5 FTW... 3.5 Till my Dice Rot!

Sincerely,
Elvnsword

I don't believe that they are throwing away the rich history of Greyhawk or any other D&D setting. But what many of the old school fanboys seem to forget or not realize is that they are SETTINGS. In my opinion the core rules for a game like D&D shouldn't be fileld with flavor for any specific setting. It should be a largely neutral book that can be adapted to any setting. D&D is so often ran in personal privately created/developed settings that I've always been shocked at how much they tie to specific settings. I don't play Greyhawk, not because its not good, but because its not what my players like. I've always liked Forgotten Realms myself, Dark Sun as well. My personal taste has no sway on my thoughts tho. The core rulebooks should be setting neutral.

Book of Nine Swords is not the devil people! Its an awesome book with lots of awesome material. In the book itself they show ways of changing the flavor of specific disciplines to fit your campaign. Do you neccesary want it to have a oriental feel? No? Well here...change the name and the mechanics are still really good. Warblade/Swordsage are the way fighters were meant to be.

I'm starting to wonder how many people feel like they have to take anything WotC publishes word for word? I always change the flavor to fit my setting. I turn to WotC products for inspiration and mechanics/game rules. The rest comes from me.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

Porticon wrote:
What part of their press has been bad? Other than the GenCon announcement being run by two people with little to no public speaking comfort/background I think they have done a great job of keeping us posted on what the plans are and what future might hold. The employee blogs for one are a huge step towards letting us in just a bit more on the process.

I'll let Sebastian hit the highlight reel, but the things that got me.

1) The 'We're ready to go electronic' anouncement, quickly followed by the crash of the WOTC servers.

2) Nope, 3.5 is dead, that Massive errata we promised? forget it. Maybe a few books.

3) Delays and diversons on the web articles that had been running, well now we know why. Like Times Select, it's behind a closed wall of content. If they'd said it in the beginning, I'd not be as miffed. We know Keith had Dragonshards already aproved

4) "Don't bother to upgrade your characters" and "Look, we're playtesting with our characters, and a whle bunch of stuff not in the 4.0 stuff." How are the readers to get a feel of the new system when we're reading about warforged, elan, psions and gnomes (oh my!)

5) Death of Living Greyhawk.

6) FR 2008, Eberron 2009. So no new crunch eberron books for two years? Way to kill a game setting guy

7) Most Importantly. Death of the Mind's Eye. Guys this was the greatest thing on the boards. It kept Psi alive, pushed for the XPH and is tons better than (in)complete Psionic. Now it's dead, and we won't even get a book out of it.


BenS wrote:


I guess I'm not equating the 2nd/3.0-3.5 editions the same as 3rd/4th editions. There's no doubt the bulk of the changes were mechanical in the 1st instance, while now, they're talking about both mechanical and flavor changes. So it's a cumulative effect that I believe will prove a larger hurdle for them to overcome, to bring older ed. fans into the fold.

True. As a 2e fan, I highly doubt anything the gaming industry ever puts out will be compatible with AD&D ever again (except for Dragonsfoot, casts bless on them), but I've become so detached from the WotC teet because of d20, it doesn't matter which direction they go anymore.

To be honest, I don't even know why I'm still subscribed to Paizo products, because none of them are compatible with AD&D either, and I'm left with a lot of work to convert every product I get in the mail, but for me it's not about that anymore. It's about ideas, adventures, lore, and new content for my game. I like Paizo products because they're fairly easy to incorporate into my AD&D game. Perhaps not mechanically, but content-wise, they fit perfectly. Crown of the Kobold King is a perfect example. It reads SO much like the great adventures of AD&D read that the crunch just doesn't matter. They could have created it using any rules at all and it'd ended up just as great. That's why I subscribe, and that's why I'm still here.


Erik Mona wrote:
So, given what you know so far, you plan to: _______________.

A) Convert! I am ready for a new D&D.

Yeah. Sign me up! You know I really thought I'd resent the new D&D because of all the stuff I own for the old version or whatever, but the more I think about it the more I realize just how much a new edition is needed. Real problems, fundamental ones, need fixing. Now are they going to fix them in this new edition or make them worse? Dunno. Frankly though it feels like they're trying to change things and at least I can applaud the effort.

The pseudo-greyhawk thing was infuriating. I'm glad that's over. The whole business of trying to figure out if they were really saying warforged or thri-reen were in Faerun for instance, or if they were really campaign specific creatures still but the writers were too ambivalent to come out and say so.

At least now there's a single overarching cosmology that works for all the settings. It's different, but not so different that it can't be retconned or reconciled with most stuff (well except for poor Planescape which is a bummer...) and I really like most of it. Okay the structure for the Nine Hells is lame like crazy, but most of the rest of it is genuinely cool.

Plus now I can make an NPC without having to just guess whether he'd logically be able to have feat X or peice of equipment Y without having to sit down for a half hour and bang out the whole NPC as if he or she were a character.

It seems like they've found a lot of broken stuff I didn't even realize was broken until they said something. But yeah, this seems to go a ways toward addressing a lot of the 3.0 weirdness. It's just a numbers game to see how much new weirdness is coming with 4.0 but I really like the work that I've seen for it so far.


A) for me too, and I second everything Grimcleaver just said. Frankly, I'm bummed out by all the haters out there.


Both D and B.

Over the years I have been gradually been developing much of my own rules that fulfill the style of play I personally enjoy.
But having said that I still enjoy 3.5. It has furnished many hours of excitement, a robust enough rule system that can pretty expediently execute any wacky idea one of my players or I might have and most importantly the type of story lines available for me to borrow from, cannibalize or use when I am plum out of ideas.
I honest get the feeling that 4E is quite a departure from the Dungeons & Dragons game and it could just as easily be called something else except for the history which that name gives it. I cannot see myself pursue 4E in any other dimension other then perhaps its art work. I guess it short it does have the right feel for me. The fact that wizards of the cost is telling me what to think about their new line and what to dislike about previous products(which they seem to forget that many they themselves made, in theory to the best of their ability) has further poisoned my opinion.

Contributor

Erik Mona wrote:

Given what you know so far, are you planning to:

A) Convert! I am ready for a new D&D.

B) 3.5 or Bust! I'm sticking with the man what brought me.

C) We'll see. Need more information.

D) Other.

B)

Heck, I'm still playing 3.0 because my group rejected moving to 3.5 when I gave them the choice at the time. They've similarly balked at moving to 4e when it comes out, but in even stronger terms this time around.

Admittedly, by the time 4e is out, my 3.x Planescape campaign will likely have wrapped up, and I'll be taking a break before I burn out. In the meantime I'm playing in an oWoD Mage game, a 3e FR game, and a 4e Shadowrun game. I'd say it's an 85% chance that I entirely skip 4e D&D and continue using 3.x for any future games.

~ Todd

The Exchange Kobold Press

Erik Mona wrote:

C) We'll see. Need more information.

So, given what you know so far, you plan to: _______________.

I ran my usual house game tonight, and we had a great time. We laughed, there was a major combat, social skills and physical skills got a workout, and the game did what it was suppose to do. We were entertained and enjoyed a heroic fantasy world.

So far, nothing about 4E convinces me that I gotta have it, though some parts are shiny and new and appealing, and some parts seem wrongheaded or, well, kind of dumb.

All my games can probably continue without 4E for quite a few years. I'm not sold yet, but I think my game is safely outside the target demographic. I'll keep the current campaign going until I get a playtest kit or until GenCon, then consider converting it.


Erik Mona wrote:
So, given what you know so far, you plan to: _______________.

Given what I know right now, I'll probably convert. Something could still come up that's a deal breaker for me, but I doubt it. What I've heard so far, I've liked. The whole 'cosmology' or 'history' of D&D means less than nothing to me; I've never used it and neither has any GM I've ever played with. They could change Succubi or the planes or giants to anything they wanted to, I probably still won't use their 'background' for anything. So, to me, it comes down to what's in the SRD, or the 'RAW' as you might say. What I've seen of the mechanics changes, I like. But we haven't seen enough for me to make a hard and fast decision. I suspect I'll know more after I sit down at Books-a-Million with the preview book.

I probably won't convert right away. We tend to plan out our gaming in 1-2 year blocks and right now we just passed the six-month point in an Eberron campaign that will probably last another six months. After that, we'll probably not want high fantasy for a time, so the year after that looks like Call of Cthulhu or some kind of 'modern occult/fairie' game.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure, Card Game, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

"C"

I will buy the core books. I am interested in a few new elements, but I'm not completely sold either.

Erik Mona wrote:

Given what you know so far, are you planning to:

A) Convert! I am ready for a new D&D.

B) 3.5 or Bust! I'm sticking with the man what brought me.

C) We'll see. Need more information.

D) Other.

Please pick one. Feel free to elaborate, but please stick to one reply each for this thread. I'm not interested in fights or refutations of incorrect points or baiting or whatever.

I want to know how you, at this moment in time, feel about the idea of converting to a new edition of the game.

I expect that people's answers will change over time. This is not the last time I will ask this question, so we'll have a chance to gauge the issue as we go along.

So, given what you know so far, you plan to: _______________.


D.

I'll either pick up the new books, or check out the 4.0 SRD, before I make any decision. I'll probably do what I've always done - tailor the rules set to make what I want out of it.


Erik Mona wrote:
So, given what you know so far, you plan to: _______________.

B) 3.5 or Bust!


D) Other - Will most likely convert to 4e but in a couple/few years.

Of course, I'll wait until I see the final rules before making a decision, but the mechanics of 4e are sounding nice to me so far. So I'm pretty sure I'll convert eventually.

However, I have too many great adventures and campaigns left to run, so as much as the "bright shiny" might catch my eye next summer, I'm pretty confident that the big stack of Expedition To's, Pathfinders, GameMastery Modules (and heck, even Savage Tide still needs to be run in my home) will keep my primary attention for at least couple more years. Yeah, I could convert them to 4e mechanics, but one of the reasons I love published adventures is that I don't have a lot of free time to mess with mechanics.


First, let me say that I have skipped pretty much everything after the first page in this thread, so as not to taint my answers. From Mr. Mona's original question, I would have to answer "Other." My group is currently playing what I guess you cuold call D&D 3.25. We never switched to 3.5, as we did not think it was necessary. We liked the version we were playing, and we saw nothing overly necessary in 3.5 to warrant the high outlay of cash required to purchase new books.

Based on what I have been seeing about 4th edition, with the heavy emphasis on online "additions and supplements," a lot of change just for the sake of change, dropping of various well loved things (for my group) from the PH, their goal of a new PH, DMG, and MM every year, and a host of other bad decisions, I think we're going to pass on this edition.

So, we'll stick with our current game and eventually we will be moving away from D&D entirely. I believe our next campaign, which is several years down the road, will be a GURPS game.


BPorter wrote:
Wow. I had no idea this thread had a magic portal to the realm of 4e-Fanboy-Kool-Aid-Drinkers!

ot: For us few continental-europeans here in old europe ... what's a Kool-Aid and what's so bad about it?

(it: Have I mentioned that I choose B?)


Erik Mona wrote:
Given what you know so far, are you planning to:

B) 3.5 or Bust! I'm sticking with the man what brought me.

For now. I have plenty of 3.5 material and I am just as likely to create my own world and use a published setting. I also have Arcana Unearthed/Evolved, Iron Heroes, and the D20 modern line (I am still toying around with a low magic/early tech game using 20 modern).

I also have a huge collection of other games, ranging from SR 4e to Hero 4e to GURPS to L5R. I also cannot shake the feeling of an edition 4.5 in four years.

I started with the D&D blue book set as a kid in the late 1970s/early 1980s. I have been down this road too many times. Changes from 1e to 2e are minor and conversions to 3.0/3.5 e are not hard to do. I am not sure if the same can be said of conversions to 4e.

Now if they give ne a new Gamma World setting with some support, I might pick that up.


DrGames wrote:
I've heard rumblings and rumors that the new version will have a lot in common with the Star Wars Saga game engine.

I like the mechanics of the Star Wars Saga rules...for STAR WARS. I found the previous d20 versions did not have the pace of action the Star Wars movies. However, I am not sure I want those rules for D&D.

The only player in my group that was psyched for 4e has lost interest the more he hears. For the most part, my gaming group agrees that the changes to the game (like removing saving throws, making the succubus a devil, etc.) make it no longer feel like D&D.


gurps wrote:
BPorter wrote:
Wow. I had no idea this thread had a magic portal to the realm of 4e-Fanboy-Kool-Aid-Drinkers!

ot: For us few continental-europeans here in old europe ... what's a Kool-Aid and what's so bad about it?

(it: Have I mentioned that I choose B?)

It's a flavored drink sold here in the U.S. Essentially, it's flavored sugar water and was a common summertime drink for kids when I was growing up. (Back in the 70s & 80s)

For the more morbid origins of the Kool-Aid phrases: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kool-Aid

More recently, it's used in corporate America to refer to someone putting blind faith in a vendor/supplier to the extent that the vendor/supplier is preaching "the one true way". Such Kool-Aid drinkers are very dismissive of any ideas counter to said "one true way".

Needless to say, I haven't been overly impressed with the new "flavors" WotC has been pushing with 4e.


BPorter wrote:
More recently, it's used in corporate America to refer to someone putting blind faith in a vendor/supplier to the extent that the vendor/supplier is preaching "the one true way". Such Kool-Aid drinkers are very dismissive of any ideas counter to said "one true way".

The current reference of blind acceptance also has a darker meaning thanks to Kool-aid's wrongful association to the Jonestown Massacre.

Liberty's Edge

Erik Mona wrote:

Given what you know so far, are you planning to:

A) Convert! I am ready for a new D&D.

B) 3.5 or Bust! I'm sticking with the man what brought me.

C) We'll see. Need more information.

D) Other.

Please pick one. Feel free to elaborate, but please stick to one reply each for this thread. I'm not interested in fights or refutations of incorrect points or baiting or whatever.

I want to know how you, at this moment in time, feel about the idea of converting to a new edition of the game.

I expect that people's answers will change over time. This is not the last time I will ask this question, so we'll have a chance to gauge the issue as we go along.

So, given what you know so far, you plan to: _______________.

C) So far, I haven't been overly impressed by what I've seen (quite the contrary, in some instances) or how WotC has been communicating with the audience. Despite this, I recognize that the final product could be good (I'm just not holding my breath). It it wows me, and allows me to play the kind of fantasy adventure that I like to play, I'll probably convert over, but only after I finish any 3.X campaigns I'm running or have in queue (such as those Pathfinder adventures I got from some cool, upstart company).

If it doesn't wow me, I'll just keep on with 3.5 and continue making houserules as need be and play Mekton or Cyberpunk or whatever whenever I decide to take a break from fantasy gaming.

251 to 300 of 370 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Gaming / D&D / 4th Edition / Tell Me Truly All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.