Memo to All 4th Edition Designers and Developers
I find that thread sickening.
And I do mean the thread, not the post so much. The level of "worship" from those sheeple destroys any faith I had in the human race.
And I think that is my biggest gripe with 4th Edition and/or it's marketing.
If we aren't sheeple, we are haters. If we don't trust the designers farther than a flea could throw them, then we are infantile ignorants that are unfairly judging a game we haven't seen yet.
What ever happened to "question authority?" Since when was challenging someone to prove themselves worthy of praise a bad thing?
When did we, as a race, roll over and beg to have our bellies rubbed?
While I do admit trepidation about 4e I have refrained from posting overly much about it though I have read as much as I can.
I enjoy Nick Logue's game material, from his offerings in the Dungeon to his Pathfinder adventures and beyond. I've read his many posts on the boards here and have agreed with much he's said. Thusly I feel at least a modicum of relief from his candid (Well as candid as he can be) comments about his time as a playtester for 4e. I have always planned to reserve judgement until I've seen the rules and how things work and though I will continue to play 3.5 (Primarily due to the amount of material I have for it that I have yet to use as both a player and a Dm) for a time I do at least feel somewhat reassured.
Thank you Nick for your disclosure.
The fact that I need to pump out 5,000 words a day until May in order to meet all my deadlines for Paizo, WotC and Open Design (check out Blood of the Gorgon on Open Design!!!...shameless plug) pretty much ensures that I am no longer a man but rather a typing-monkey.
I'm sure we've all heard the old saw: "A million monkeys typing away will eventually produce the works of Nicholas Logue." Or something like that.
Thanks to Nick for sharing. I now feel better about refusing 4e :-)
About "cool" - well, its not the word itself that is objectionable, but its use as smokescreen when the folks at wizards could not disclose any true information. The attempt at humour was rather lame IMO, but then, the language barrier might keep me from appreciating it fully.
Stefan
|
If we aren't sheeple, we are haters.
Maybe the vocal ones are those with passionate views for one side or the other, so that's why it seems our community is divided between polar opposites.
Meanwhile, those of us who haven't formed an opinion yet one way or the other, are waiting to see the product before judging, or will likely play either or both versions, aren't posting hyperbole, we're just keeping our mediocrity to ourselves.
Am I to understand that the Dungeon Master's Guide is just going to be a pair (possibly a trio) of breasts?
As for the second coming of Pelor, why don't you just stop for a moment and ask yourself: "What Would Jozan Do?"
"What Would Jozan Do?"
Probably weep softly over the death of a pantheon.
SAT Prep Sample Question 6:
Nick Logue endorsing 4E is to Rupaul endorsing political candidate X.
Nick, I'm not sure if you can answer me but, if so, I'd like to ask at least one question (any information at all would be appreciated):
Will we be able to play 4E without minis?
I would use some for special encounters, as I think they can add something at times, but I'm still too oldschool and never really liked them. I'm much more comfortable keeping track of things in my head and on a piece of scratch paper. 3E relied heavily on minis but I know a lot of people didn't use them (I didn't experiment too much with NOT using them in 3E as I was trying to play default at first). I've heard that leaving them behind wasn't that hard, though.
Would the same hold true for 4E? I don't mind using squares as the measurement of movement as I can do the math (or treat it like a ratio in my head) with those numbers. That doesn't bother me. But is the game, now that it's simplified, capable of being run without miniatures?
Any reply would be great, but I understand completely if you can't comment. Thanks!
|
Nick,
I absolutely love you and your work and want to see you make loads of phat ca$h off of your writing, but I still am very, very doubtful that I'll be purchasing any 4e product...you, Richard, Greg, and Tim are a few of the extreemly finite number of things that even raise the possibility of me buying ANY future WotC products. They have just F-ed up one thing after another with this whole affair and I've pretty much hopped off the train.
I understand that under the NDA you are only allowed to present a fragmentary picture of a whole, and that's fine, that's just business. But it also means that I can't take your great closet escape as anything more than a commercial. I don't mean this as a slight against you in the least, Nick. I'm as unconvinced now as I have been since the announcemnt of 4E and the DDI. Moreso, after the unveiling of the Race & Class books and the Pit Fiend stat block.
|
/sarcasm/
Dear Paizo,
please refund all cash that was used in my purchases of Nick the Traitor's products.
:P
/ends sarcasm/
Ok seriously Nick.....after reading your posts in another thread and seeing what you mention here it seems like you are giving conflicting advice. Or maybe you were just being coy cuz in the other thread you didnt come out of the closet. In the Ari thread, I dont want to say you bash 4e a lil, but you dont give it a thumbs up and here you suggest we pick it up and read it..... Maybe I am just misunderstanding you.....
(sings in his best Cartman voice) "Nick Logue in the closet, Nick Logue in the closet......"
.... talk to each other instead of at each other.
You have very aptly put one of the objections I have made about your own manner of posting. Now that I have perused your blog, I believe you really do take this seriously and want to be more understanding of other people's positions on the game they love.
Am I to understand that the Dungeon Master's Guide is just going to be a pair (possibly a trio) of breasts?
If that's the case I'm ordering three copies! WOOHOO!
|
Nick, I'm not sure if you can answer me but, if so, I'd like to ask at least one question (any information at all would be appreciated):
Will we be able to play 4E without minis?
I would use some for special encounters, as I think they can add something at times, but I'm still too oldschool and never really liked them. I'm much more comfortable keeping track of things in my head and on a piece of scratch paper. 3E relied heavily on minis but I know a lot of people didn't use them (I didn't experiment too much with NOT using them in 3E as I was trying to play default at first). I've heard that leaving them behind wasn't that hard, though.
Would the same hold true for 4E? I don't mind using squares as the measurement of movement as I can do the math (or treat it like a ratio in my head) with those numbers. That doesn't bother me. But is the game, now that it's simplified, capable of being run without miniatures?
Any reply would be great, but I understand completely if you can't comment. Thanks!
I have an analogy. I play Mekton, a lot. In Mekton, ALL tactical movement and range are expressed in hexes. There's a formula to convert hexes of movement to real distance and speed but it's almost never used. In terms of system, Mekton is FAR more rigidly linked to a defined map than D&D.
I have never in 14 years of playing Mekton actually used a hexmap for combat. If I can run and play Mekton for 14 years without using a map and miniatures, you can run and play D&D without it.
|
|
Of course, Logue did write adventures for Eberron, so that's already a black mark against him in my book. Still, his honesty is appreciated. I've become more determined to keep an open mind about 4E, but I do know that if I buy it will only be the Players Handbook, and maybe the DMG. I don't want to spend s+!~loads of money on books that will be obsolete in another 5-7 years (or sooner).
One question for Nick though (if he's allowed to answer): Will the Shade be a playable race in the MM?
....and he's tellin' me more and more
about some useless information
supposed to fire my imagination.
I can't get no, oh no no no.
Hey hey hey, that's what I say.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Nick,
Glad and sad to see you're psyched about 4.x.
Glad for what it means for your payroll, and for the potential of the hobby continuing and maybe growing.
Sad that it likely hastens the death of 3.x products (Paizo PLEASE keep Second Darkness 3.x, I beg of you)
Of course, Logue did write adventures for Eberron, so that's already a black mark against him in my book.
Freelancer=prostitute
|
|
Out of curiosity, what are the character concepts you don't think you'll be able to do?Since you asked, a gnome bard. I'm not being hateful. I like playing small characters.
I'm not being snarky either, but how about a half-orc barbarian? Maybe a human monk? A half-elf druid? I think you get the point now.
|
|
I'm not questioning the mechanical changes to 4e, a lot of those actually make a good bit of sense, but why on Earth did they think that 30+ years of tradition, story, and background material, especially on the planes, had to be tossed aside? Is D&D actually so sick and weak in buisness terms that the only way to keep it alive is to treat all the history from 1e to the present as nothing more than a gangrenous limb to be hacked off in the name of attracting a new audience, of "broadening the appeal of the game"? Is it all so insanely complicated that it had to be tossed?
Right now, all I see 4e to be is a 20-sided die based fantasy RPG (note: I did not say "d20"), not a new edition of D&D. I freely admit I was in the "OMG 3e is evil!" camp at its release, and now I'm a true 3e fanatic, but the traditions, the assumed world was always more or less there (except for FR's planes... not that I ever used those anyway...). Why toss out parts of D&D that have been there since the beginning, heck, since some of the inspirations for the source material were written back in the 12th Century! (I'm looking at you "uh, no, erinyes don't exist anymore, succubi were just devils all along, it doesn't matter even if they existed in Dante's Divine Comedy")
|
Since when was challenging someone to prove themselves worthy of praise a bad thing?
I definitely believe that praise is earned, but scorn is also earned. I appreciate the folks that express their unease at the direction 4E may be taking. I also think its ok for folks to express satisfaction at the direction 4E may be taking. I think these two set of folks are actually in the majority. The problem is that the haters and sycophants are much easier to spot and we tend to lump people that sound a little bit like them into that class even when they do not actually belong there.
|
|
Will we be able to play 4E without minis?
I would use some for special encounters, as I think they can add something at times, but I'm still too oldschool and never really liked them. I'm much more comfortable keeping track of things in my head and on a piece of scratch paper.
I have heard this preference a few times with 4E and with 3.5. I was wondering where the notion that D&D without minis is "old school"? I actually owned minis before I played the game - we're talking 1975 when I used them to play Dungeon. When I started to play D&D the very next year I saw that the cover of each game book said that it was a wargame played with pencil paper and miniature figures. By the end of 1977 I had so many minis that my 10 year old self could no longer carry them all to school with me.
So for me I could never separate D&D from miniatures but I would be very interested to hear how folks may have formed the opposite style of play.
Whether or not you find Scott Rouse's "memo" funny or not, please note this for context. Scott is fairly popular poster over at EN World because he's a semi-regular contributor to discussions, but mostly because he has a sense of humor. Do some people fawn too much over him, probably yes, but you see that on every D&D/d20 messageboard when someone in the industry participates.
|
|
So for me I could never separate D&D from miniatures but I would be very interested to hear how folks may have formed the opposite style of play.
I never had the money for miniatures when I was a kid and first starting D&D. What money I had went to supplements.
When I got older, and had more income I started collecting mini's (not the plastic ones though) but by that point I had been playing for years and years without them and I still rarely use them in actual game play. When I do use them, it is usually for bigger battles.
Recently,I've acquired a keen interest in mini's, but instead of it leading me to using them in my RPG's more, it has led me towards giving Warlord (mini skirmish game) a try. I've got my dwarven army on the way. ;D
If you want faster game play and lots of new combat options no matter what class you're playing then this game delivers the goods.
...
This is probably the most succinct summation of 4E I've seen and, though it disappoints me, I am grateful you provided it.
I can't wait until Paizo is able to make a decision on what to do so that our freelancers can shamelessly shill our new stuff, too.
I think a lot of people can't wait until Paizo is able to make a decision; I know I am.
5K words a day... damn! I consider it a good day when I do my 400 words a day. You da man.
Are you trying to sound like you've been brainwashed, or did it just sort of happen?
I think he's expressing how painful it has been for him, sitting by and watching a few people make undeserved personal attacks on someone he considers a friend.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
...When I ran Shackled City, I had a very nonstandard party: gold dragon (monster class), a paladin, a weretiger, and a barbarian. It was a challenge not having a druid or a cleric for healing.... those adventures really revolved around presenting an iconic D&D experience, and I really had to adjust to make it work without dedicated healing and a good, solid meat shield.
When I ran Age of Worms, however, my players did the fighter/cleric/rogue/wizard thing, and it worked out SO much better.
This is the best reason I've heard for DMs to get off their lazy butts and design campaigns and adventures around the PC's, not vice versa.
Over the past several years, I've seen a drift away from the default D&D experience being character-driven campaigns towards an expectation of out-of-the-box adventure paths which require the players to design "iconic parties." I think this is a bad trend.
Let's say I'm one of your players and I announce I'd like to play an aristocratic bard, the rightful second son of the local Duke, framed for treason by the Thieves' guild. My character'd like to regain his good name and standing in the family.
Classic fantasy trope. One of the other players volunteers to be my boyhood friend and erstwhile bodyguard, joining me in exile. Someone else thinks it would be fun to play a rogue, a sleeper agent of the Thieves' Guild, who might change sides if I treat her with more respect than the Guildmasters do. The last player decides to run a dwarven ranger, offering to guide us to his homelands, for his own secret purposes.
Are you, the DM, going to say, "Well, you can be a royal scion if you like, but this campaign's never going to address any of your backstories. And the adventures presume the party is well-balanced, so why don't you change your character to a wizard, and let's make the ranger into a cleric."
|
Thanks to Nick for sharing. I now feel better about refusing 4e :-)
About "cool" - well, its not the word itself that is objectionable, but its use as smokescreen when the folks at wizards could not disclose any true information. The attempt at humour was rather lame IMO, but then, the language barrier might keep me from appreciating it fully.
Stefan
What he said.
I love ya Nicky. Sorry I can't follow you down this road.
But I'll be waiting here for you, when you come back to the 3.5 faithful.
So for me I could never separate D&D from miniatures but I would be very interested to hear how folks may have formed the opposite style of play.
For any of the groups I have played in... And I am up to, what, 5th or 6th regular group plus uncountable non regular groups... The same reasonings apply.
Lack of Money
plus
Lack of Space
plus
Lack of Time/Skill/Interest
Only in my recent group have more than one player had enough disposable income to purchase "frivolous" things like minis.
Most of the time, we play at the largest house, and that house never has enough room for all of us (about six people on average) and a full size table. Even if our group is small enough to enjoy a table at our games, it gets covered quickly by notebooks (paper, not laptops), rulebooks, dicebags, snacks, and drinks. And that is after we have removed all the unnecessary stuff from the table.
Most of us just don't have the inclination to paint minis. As much as it pains me to say it, WotCs pre painted plastic minis were a great idea. Selling them only in random booster packs is a horrid idea. (I am thankful for Paizo selling individual minis, but see the following point.) Even now that we have a minis painter in the group (the rest of us are happy to pay him to paint any minis we might want), finding appropriate minis is a nightmare! You have to troll several sites and look through all the pictures to only come up with something sort of close to what you are looking for. Or, you could schedule about 4 hours to spend at your FLGS, only to end up in a similar situation - having to settle for what you can get. Right now, we are getting into Necromunda and I am dreading getting my own minis for the game. I'll settle for the sets that Games Workshop is selling for the house gang I have (although I hate the distribution in the sets), but I fear what is going to happen if I try a new gang of Ash Waste Nomads. I don't want to think how sucky tying to find 8 to 12 robed, desert-style, minis with respirators and armed with things ranging from knives to heavy plasma guns, is going to be.
So no. I have, nor have I ever known, many people to get into minis.
|
|
I find it... funny (both in the haha sense, but also in the funny-strange sense) that one of Paizo's lead freelancers has been doing playtesting of the new rules, while Paizo, as a company, hasn't been able to get even a glimpse of the rules until very recently.
Welcome to my world.
I've been working with Microsoft for the last 16 years. (I live in the Seattle region.) In that time I've seen and signed so many freakin NDA's that my mind boggles at the number of trees that have died in that cause. I've sat in product meetings with my company literally vibrating as I hear them discussing our product direction and knowing it's *completely* *wrong* but unable to say anything because of the Microsoft NDA. I feel your pain Erik.
NDA's are a reality of the business world. I have a friend who owns a game company (Flying Labs - Buy Pirates!) and they have to deal with this for artwork, playtesters, all sorts of stuff. I'm sure that Paizo has NDA's too. In fact if Paizo wants me to sign an NDA so I can play cool new stuff I'm going to be in Renton this afternoon. ;-)
-Pete
|
|
So for me I could never separate D&D from miniatures but I would be very interested to hear how folks may have formed the opposite style of play.
I did. Had no money for them, and the lack of minis/battlemats/tabletop maps helped me develop orathory skills good enough to describe a place to my players without further props needed.
Nowadays I do use minis and battlemats, but for pure visual flair, and to have an edge during complex situation and battles (where's who facing what, etc.) - I stubbornly refuse to use the grid to calculate distance, area of effects, etc.
The description I provide, and the ones the players give for their character action/reactions are always more than sufficient.
I'm disgusted, but not surprised - I always knew Nick was a pervert.
I'm surprised, but not disgusted - Nick always knew I was a pervert.
|
|
...When I ran Shackled City, I had a very nonstandard party: gold dragon (monster class), a paladin, a weretiger, and a barbarian. It was a challenge not having a druid or a cleric for healing.... those adventures really revolved around presenting an iconic D&D experience, and I really had to adjust to make it work without dedicated healing and a good, solid meat shield.
When I ran Age of Worms, however, my players did the fighter/cleric/rogue/wizard thing, and it worked out SO much better.
This is the best reason I've heard for DMs to get off their lazy butts and design campaigns and adventures around the PC's, not vice versa.
Over the past several years, I've seen a drift away from the default D&D experience being character-driven campaigns towards an expectation of out-of-the-box adventure paths which require the players to design "iconic parties." I think this is a bad trend.
Exactly this. I hate, hate, hate responding to someone looking for groupmates in EQ2 and hearing, 'Oh, sorry, we can't take you, we need to save a slot for class X.' My eye twitched when I sat down to an RPGA game at GenCon and since nobody had brought a Fighter, someone had to 'take one for the team' and play a pregen Fighter, because *heaven forfend* the party be able to function without that perfect nuclear family of Cleric / Fighter / Rogue / Wizard. Grr.
And it gets far worse, when people start fine-picking the requirements. Oh no, we can't make do with a Druid, you have to play a Cleric, preferably with the Healing Domain headed into Radiant HealingB*tch of Pelor. Two-Weapon Fighting Ranger? Back of the line suboptimal gimp-peasant, try this Goliath Frenzied Berserker Spiked Chain Gatling-Trip-build, so you can keep up with the grownups.
I'd *hoped* that 4E, with it's distributed healing options like Second Wind, might finally be putting a shiny axe in the skull of 'optimal parties' being the only option, to the point where convention games have specific rules to encourage taking 'core four' classes and 'filling the roles.' But the even more strongly emphasized roles sound like they are going to make it even more prevalent. Instead of saying, 'I'm playing the Wizard/Druid/Warlock' and being able to cover the Striker (metamagicked Scorching Ray!) *and* Battlefield Control (Grease/Glitterdust/Black Tentacles/Wall of Ouchie) *and* possibly other roles, oh no, my class will now be focused to do one of these things, making parties even more dependent on having specific roles covered by specific classes, instead of being able to play the 'all Fighter / Rogue party' that relies on a Ranger or Bard (or some Wands and UMD) for healing.
Out of curiosity, what are the character concepts you don't think you'll be able to do?
Multipurpose characters, such as the generalist Wizards, Clerics and Druids I tend to prefer. I can play Striker with the appropriate spells (or Wild Shape, or Smite with Destruction Domain and / or spontaneous Inflicts), I can play 'controller' with Walls of Whatever, I can summon all sorts of critters to deal with particular situations (ooh, flying mob, here come the Celestial Eagles! Ooh, darkness, here come the Dire Bats! Ooh, big stone block in the way, here comes the Thoqqua!). I can Animate Dead and send minions to provide flanking opportunities to my allies (cause they ain't good for much else at the level you can make them!), 'search for traps' and carry my bags of loot out of the dungeon. I can charm friends and influence people.
It sounds like Summoning is gone. It sounds like Necromancy is gone. It sounds like Enchantment is gone. It sounds like Illusion is gone.
It's beginning to sounds like the Wizard has become almost as versatile as the Warlock... Round 1, I blast. Round 2, I blast. There's a wall in the way! I blast it. The hobgoblin won't tell you were the prisoners were taken! I blast him until he talks, and then start with the next one, 'cause that's all I do, is blow stuff up.
Sure, it's no different than playing an actual Warlock, which I do sometimes also enjoy (sometimes you just don't want to think...), but what about the times when I *didn't* want to play a one-trick pony with one specific role to fill? What if I want to go against the grain and play a Fighter who controls foes movement with his fearsome AoO provoking reach weapon, or a Druid who spends all his time in Lion shape and death-by-Pouncing people as a Striker?
|
|
The only thing that irks me: Nobody so far is able or willing to discuss some of the shortcomings of 4th edition.
I am sure the game will be awesome and the mechanics very good.
But nothing is without flaw.
I am so waiting for a REVIEW of 4th edition. But that will take a few more month.
That said, I am still not sure if I like the style of 4th and will play it. But I will at least buy the PHB.
|
|
The only thing that irks me: Nobody so far is able or willing to discuss some of the shortcomings of 4th edition.
I am sure the game will be awesome and the mechanics very good.
But nothing is without flaw.I am so waiting for a REVIEW of 4th edition. But that will take a few more month.
That said, I am still not sure if I like the style of 4th and will play it. But I will at least buy the PHB.
If you are under NDA you can't talk about shortcomings. Imagine some playtester talking about how broken so and so class is, when in the final version all that stuff is fixed. It's just makes the playtester look dumb and provides FUD (Fear Uncertainty and Doubt) when it wasn't necessary.
So no, I don't want to hear about the shortcomings of 4E. I hope they get alot of feedback and have managed to fix alot of it so the errata sheet is as short as possible.
-Pete
|
|
Andy Collins is one of the finest human beings I've ever met. He is compassionate, brilliant, generous, wise, and full of love for the game. He is, quite frankly, one of the world's best game designers, and he has a bright and glorious soul that exudes kindness, warmth, and strength of spirit. He is not disingenuous or duplicitous. Nor does he conspire to murder our childhood love of D&D. He is a committed designer working hard to make the game better for as many people as possible.
Of this I have no doubt, I frequent his boards for this very reason. Unfortunately for me, I do not like the games he designs. I truly think Andy is the primary reason for the "COOL" new powers a la superheroes.
|
|
This is the best reason I've heard for DMs to get off their lazy butts and design campaigns and adventures around the PC's, not vice versa.Over the past several years, I've seen a drift away from the default D&D experience being character-driven campaigns towards an expectation of out-of-the-box adventure paths which require the players to design "iconic parties." I think this is a bad trend.
Absolutely. I've DM'd for twenty-mumble-mumble years and have parties as large as 8 and as small as 1 person. With all sorts of varied combinations of skills and groups. You can make it work. Heck, part of the fun is making it work and leads to fun role-playing.
"Alright, we're broke, so here's the plan, we break into the temple at 2AM and steal as many healing potions and wands as we can find."
|
|
If you are under NDA you can't talk about shortcomings. Imagine some playtester talking about how broken so and so class is, when in the final version all that stuff is fixed. It's just makes the playtester look dumb and provides FUD (Fear Uncertainty and Doubt) when it wasn't necessary.
So no, I don't want to hear about the shortcomings of 4E. I hope they get alot of feedback and have managed to fix alot of it so the errata sheet is as short as possible.
-Pete
I know that, I am long time playtester for Green Ronin (and currently playtesting the upcoming A song of Ice and Fire game*).
And I know that nobody in marketing his right mind will allow negative feedback.But I nonetheless WANT a good review (even though I won't get it in the next few months)
Like: Warlock is cool and class abilities awesome, but you have to use a certain cosmology to be able to use him bla bla bla.
* shameless plug: a brilliant game by the way. No D20 or True 20 engine, but a new one. Especially designed for this game. If you are looking for grim and gritty rules and like G.R.R. Martins Books, this game is for you!