like the typical American business people that they are, and took the easy route.
Wait a second! Are you saying you don't want DnD made by Americuns, for Americuns?! Because this "no profit" sounds like communism to me, buddy!
I sincerely hope you're using hyperbole here... the US has left the McCarty era you know. And btw. "no profit" has absolutely nothing to do with communism. Communism is an economic model where wealth is distributed evenly among a population (to put it very shortly). Again, if you're not using hyperbole I'd suggest you read some books. :-)
If you are, I apologize and suggest you use smileys in the future. :-)
|
like the typical American business people that they are, and took the easy route.
Wait a second! Are you saying you don't want DnD made by Americuns, for Americuns?! Because this "no profit" sounds like communism to me, buddy!
I sincerely hope you're using hyperbole here... the US has left the McCarty era you know. And btw. "no profit" has absolutely nothing to do with communism. Communism is an economic model where wealth is distributed evenly among a population (to put it very shortly). Again, if you're not using hyperbole I'd suggest you read some books. :-)
If you are, I apologize and suggest you use smileys in the future. :-)
If any system of government were to be used for the creation of DnD it would obviously have to be an anarcho-syndicalist commune where we take turns acting as an executive officer for the week with all the decisions of that officer to be ratified at a special biweekly meeting - by a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs - but by a two-thirds majority in the case of more-- oh nevermind...
Hyperbole! Of course! You are quite right *I* was - but it's clear to me now that some of the previous posters must have been using Hyperbole and forgotten to include their smiley face. :-)
Pete
PS: It's Joseph McCartHy - with an H. Unless you mean Billy the Kid, who's actual name was William McCarty. Btw, I read that in a book. :-)
By any chance (and at a risk of diverging wildly off-topic) do you decry the changes in fluff?
The PoL assumed setting is, IMO, the way D&D should be. The game was originally a toolkit to make your own game. Greyhawk, I feel, should not be an assumed setting. I am not thrilled about the changes to the FR; I would be alot more upset about them if I played in the FR world for longer then 6 months. But I do feel for those that have played in there for a decade or two.
And I currently play 3.5. It has, IMO, a good balance between holding true to its roots and modernization. (Let me say it plainly, I'm all for modernization, as long as it stays true to the game's origins.)
Exalted, by contrast, has a single setting. The system is built around that setting. The setting is built around the system. Exalted is not a rulesset but a complete game. D&D is a rulesset. From it you can play Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms, Pathfinder Chronicles, Wildernes of High Fantasy, and many more with practically no modificaiton. With a little modificaiton you can play Third Dawn, Thieves World, Game of Thrones, and others. But if you took Exalted's rules and tried to play the Forgotten Realms with it, is it still the Forgotten Realms? IMO, no; it will not look anything recognizable to long time FR players.
By any chance (and at a risk of diverging wildly off-topic) do you decry the changes in fluff?The PoL assumed setting is, IMO, the way D&D should be. The game was originally a toolkit to make your own game. Greyhawk, I feel, should not be an assumed setting. I am not thrilled about the changes to the FR; I would be alot more upset about them if I played in the FR world for longer then 6 months. But I do feel for those that have played in there for a decade or two.
Well there goes that idea. :P
For this part, I agree with you regarding the direction of the fluff. I didn't mind Greyhawk in as much, but that was more my lack of any knowledge of Greyhawk than an acceptance of the campaign setting (hmm ... theres a city ... somewhere ... named Greyhawk? Yeah I've run that campaign ...)
I feel for the people who played in FR, although I don't understand those who choose to boycott 4E over the changes in the Realms (I guess it makes sense if the only DnD you're willing to play is FR ...)
Again, on a widely divergent note, I think I'm more likely to play FR in 4E than I was before, although I guess that remains to be seen ...
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 8
|
The PoL assumed setting is, IMO, the way D&D should be. The game was originally a toolkit to make your own game.
I agree. Personally, I don't usually run in any established campaign settings. I occasionally will play in Forgotten Realms, play in Dark Sun and enjoy the Blackmoor MMRPG. I will run Ravenloft infrequently, but that is the only one.
I run a homebrew setting that I've been using for 6 years. I have come to the conclusion that all game worlds are fundamently the same whether it be Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms, my world, etc. The only game flavor difference between these is the amount of and availability of magic. I think the reason game worlds like Ravenloft, Spelljammer, Dark Sun, etc remain as popular is because they are that something different. Products are necessary and important for those game worlds because it is a shared storyline and community much like Star Wars or Exalted.
Another realization I've had is that my world would work fine under AD&D 2e or even Paladium Fantasy. My players don't play classes, they play characters. They use classes to build the characters they want. Unfortunately, I also seem to realize that with 3.0+, the game does seem to build more towards hack n slash and less from story/roleplay. that is why I do not desire 4e.
|
|
Maybe I fail to understand the 'Points of Light' setting, but I absolutely disagree that ALL campaigns should be 'like that'. I do think that it is a good way to have a campaign, but there are other good ways too. And unless I misunderstand the term, certain good campaigns wouldn't work with that setting.
I've recently acquired the Ptolus campaign setting (the setting that was used to help spawn 3rd edition), and while I have yet to play in it, if it can fit the 'large point of light' than the term probably ceases to have any kind of meaning.
Ptolus isn't a point of light. It is a city in shadow. It has good people and bad people and a lot of scary people. But what's really nice is that it is a good place to go adventuring. And that is what D&D is (and in my opinion, should be).
Sometimes you want to adventure in a 'dark ages' setting where even the next settlement over is as much rumor as fact and sometimes you want to campaign in 1650, in a world that really believes it has 'found everything' and civilization seems to be on the march to the far corners of the world.
In any case, the OP has a valid point. Spitting on anyone over a game (even if those people really are ruining it [which I am not saying]) is inappropriate. However, not having been present for the original conversation it certainly might not have been taken in context (and there is a place for that kind of talk). And even if it was, making completely outrageous statements is certainly a good way to learn conversation skills - about what is acceptable and what is not - and the best place to do that is with people that you feel you can trust.
Long story short, I don't intend to support 4th edition. I'm not keen on many of the changes that I've heard of. Even if 4th edition is great, I'm very happy with 3rd edition, so I have no reason to change. Even if I did feel the need to change, I don't think that WoTC has addressed the underlying problems that they say are the reason that 4th edition is necessary (bloat), and until they do, this situation will be an endless cycle. Even if they did fix the underlying problem, there is still the fact that they destroyed the magazines that I have a deep fondness for. While I certainly like Pathfinder (and associated products) I also have a profound respect for the hobby and KILLING a treasured tradition for inscrutable reasons is another reason for me not to follow WotC. Of course, if the magazines come back (in physical format) I might be willing to consider 4th edition if the other concerns are addressed. But, since they have yet to address those other concerns, that would be a moot point, anyway. Now, in theory I do support change and growth. I like the idea of a new edition, and I'm probably going to look forward to 5th edition. Though I remain skeptical. I mean, if the DDI (as it stands now) is the fulfillment of their promise to the community, well, disappointment is only the first of my emotions.
If any system of government were to be used for the creation of DnD it would obviously have to be an anarcho-syndicalist commune where we take turns acting as an executive officer for the week with all the decisions of that officer to be ratified at a special biweekly meeting - by a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs - but by a two-thirds majority in the case of more-- oh nevermind...
Hyperbole! Of course! You are quite right *I* was - but it's clear to me now that some of the previous posters must have been using Hyperbole and forgotten to include their smiley face. :-)
Pete
PS: It's Joseph McCartHy - with an H. Unless you mean Billy the Kid, who's actual name was William McCarty. Btw, I read that in a book. :-)
Alas, I fear that you're right regarding the lack of hyperbole from some posters (even though one could have hoped that this was their intended delivery method).
And curses! I knew I should have checked the name before I sent the post off. Oh well, I guess that's just further evidence that I'm not American. :-)Anyway, enough thread jacking!
He was asserting that PoL was absolutely the right way for D&D to approach its so called "default" setting.
Good way of putting it.
They apparently feel that using GH or FR as a default setting unnecessarily constrains homebrew DMs (which I personally think is hogwash) and limits their flexibility in terms of kinds of adventures they can write (which I agree with).
I happen to have Complete Warrior at my fingertips, so I am going to pick on it (nothing against it, just physically convient). PrCs like the Purple Dragon Knights are from the Forgotten Realms. It has flavor and fluff specific to the Forgotten Realms. It has no place in the homebrew that rests in my mind nor does it belong in the Pathfinder Chronicles game that I'd love to run.
So now you're saying, "Well, don't use it," or "Modify it to fit your own campaign setting." Storytime: Until recently, I played in a game with the abovementioned railroady DM (he stepped down, thank gawd). No matter what it was, it had to come from a book. Feat, PrC, variant class, spell, etc. No matter what, no player creativity. In short, he sucked. But since the Purple Dragon Knights didn't exist in his world, I could never join them. Nor could an orginization exist that used the PDK PrC with some minor name modifications to fit his world. So that is content I cannot use. But the point of my story is is that I know I am not the only one with this experience. Hell, the reason I left D&D back in 1E and didn't return until 3.5 is because of things like this.
For the record, every player in the group volunteered to DM. (IME, the DM's level of suckage is directly proportional to how many players are volunteering to take over DM.)
Greyhawk as an implied setting was the absolute worst result for Greyhawk- everyone was introduced to Greyhawk-Lite, which hardly appealed to anyone enough to figure out the greater, deeper world of Greyhawk.
Worse, tons and tons of things got shoehorned into the faux-setting because, well.... it was the implied setting. The watering down was horrible.
An implicit Points of Light campaign is absolutely the way to go. I would argue that the early editions used that very model (Keep on the Borderlands, anyone?) to a high degree of success.
One more thing- someone mentioned that 4e doesn't address the concept of "Bloat". I don't exactly know what "Bloat" means to that poster, but 4e's main purpose is to get rid of niche rules and overly complicated subsystems, which is my definition of the word bloat.
I don't exactly know what "Bloat" means to that poster, but 4e's main purpose is to get rid of niche rules and overly complicated subsystems, which is my definition of the word bloat.
Well, it depends on what kind of bloat you're talking about. Supplement Bloat means that you get 1000 supplements to the point where no two games use the same supplements in a game. It means that you buy a $30 supplement for a single class (and maybe a few spells) and the rest is worthless. Some people thought that they weren't going to get complete book/race books now that we got a yearly PHB. IMO, they were kidding only themselves.
4E is designed from the ground up to be bloated (supplement). If you want some classes/monsters/etc that are traditionally associated with D&D, they will not available in the first round of books, as they traditionally are in D&D.
And even then, don't kid yourself either that there won't be subsystems as well. System Bloat, yea the base system will be more streamlined, more intuitive, etc, but Powersource Incarnum is bound to have its own subsystem. Powersource Truename is bound to have its own subsystem. Powersource Feral is bound to have its own subsystem. Powersource Vestage is bound to have its own subsystem. Just because all the subsystems won't be available right away doesn't mean will never come.
|
|
Thank you for clairifying the point regarding Points of Light. I do agree that the rules should be 'world neutral'. I'm not certain that the assumption of points of light doesn't carry with it any inconvenient assumptions similar to the way that a Prestige Class from the Forgotten Realms carries some inconvenient assumptions.
In the MM III they have a little section for monsters for Eberron and Forgotten Realms. While I don't really care for those sections for most of the monsters, that type of sidebar is a good thing.
My contention is that a great prestige class (let's say Purple Dragon Knight) is hard for a DM to add to his game AFTER he has already created the world. The prestige class implies a particular organization, and with the organization having an impact, it is kind of straining disbelief to put it into a campaign somewhere in the middle.
The 'organizations' in the PHBII would be a good side bar for such prestige classes, explaining the organization and benefits of affiliation. This will make them much more transparent, and more easily transplantable.
The other option, of course, is just to abandon organizations in regard to PrCs. They exist just as base classes do, and anyone can take levels in it (with the right pre-reqs) just as anyone could take levels in rogue. This implies that two Purple Dragon Knights may have nothing in common, and could be on the completely opposite side.
So, I guess I'm curious to see what 'default assumptions' a Points of Light setting brings with it. I think that there are some - for example, anything released for 4th edition by WotC will use the default pantheon. The other choice is to simply create a new god of war or death everytime you release a supplement that uses them.
I, for one, welcome neutrality, but doubt that a points of light setting will be neutral enough (though it may be an improvement over Greyhawk-lite).
|
|
One more thing- someone mentioned that 4e doesn't address the concept of "Bloat". I don't exactly know what "Bloat" means to that poster, but 4e's main purpose is to get rid of niche rules and overly complicated subsystems, which is my definition of the word bloat.
This is not 4e's main purpose.
4e's main purpose is to increase shareholder wealth.There's allready a splatbook on the schedule.
They apparently feel that using GH or FR as a default setting unnecessarily constrains homebrew DMs (which I personally think is hogwash) and limits their flexibility in terms of kinds of adventures they can write (which I agree with).
I happen to have Complete Warrior at my fingertips, so I am going to pick on it (nothing against it, just physically convient). PrCs like the Purple Dragon Knights are from the Forgotten Realms. It has flavor and fluff specific to the Forgotten Realms. It has no place in the homebrew that rests in my mind nor does it belong in the Pathfinder Chronicles game that I'd love to run.
So now you're saying, "Well, don't use it," or "Modify it to fit your own campaign setting." Storytime: Until recently, I played in a game with the abovementioned railroady DM (he stepped down, thank gawd). No matter what it was, it had to come from a book. Feat, PrC, variant class, spell, etc. No matter what, no player creativity. In short, he sucked. But since the Purple Dragon Knights didn't exist in his world, I could never join them. Nor could an orginization exist that used the PDK PrC with some minor name modifications to fit his world. So that is content I cannot use. But the point of my story is is that I know I am not the only one with this experience. Hell, the reason I left D&D back in 1E and didn't return until 3.5 is because of things like this.
For the record, every player in the group volunteered to DM. (IME, the DM's level of suckage is directly proportional to how many players are volunteering to take over DM.)
I have to agree with DDMW when it comes to putting in campaign specific Prestige Classes into a homebrew- or putting anything from outside sources into a homebrew for that matter. I don't view it as railroading, per se, but it does bruise the ego if a player wants to import something from someplace else without at least giving the homebrewed world material a try. That said, if this guy sucks, then he sucks, and he should pass the hat on to someone else clamoring to DM until he gets his act together.
I don't view it as railroading, per se,
No, my old DM railroads. If we leave his predetermined course of events, we hit a wall that forces us back to his plot. If we come within a few HP of defeating someone he wants as a reoccurring NPC, they find some way to escape that is damn near impossible to occur.
but it does bruise the ego if a player wants to import something from someplace else without at least giving the homebrewed world material a try.
He allows all WotC settingless material. If said PrC has an attached orginization, it was not allowed. He didn't come up with his own. Players weren't allowed to come up with their either.
|
Greyhawk as an implied setting was the absolute worst result for Greyhawk- everyone was introduced to Greyhawk-Lite, which hardly appealed to anyone enough to figure out the greater, deeper world of Greyhawk.
Worse, tons and tons of things got shoehorned into the faux-setting because, well.... it was the implied setting. The watering down was horrible.
An implicit Points of Light campaign is absolutely the way to go. I would argue that the early editions used that very model (Keep on the Borderlands, anyone?) to a high degree of success.
If POL is the way to go, and Greyhawk-lite was bad, tell'em to stop stealing from Greyhawk for 4e. Its sickening the lack of support greyhawk got, and now to watch them pick the bones for the POL setting of 4e.
|
|
Well, it depends on what kind of bloat you're talking about. Supplement Bloat means that you get 1000 supplements to the point where no two games use the same supplements in a game. It means that you buy a $30 supplement for a single class (and maybe a few spells) and the rest is worthless. Some people thought that they weren't going to get complete book/race books now that we got a yearly PHB. IMO, they were kidding only themselves.
Yah, so, I saw that 3.0/3.5 marketing train coming and didn't buy into it. I play with the 3 core rule books. The whole prestige class and alternative classes hoo-haa is just too much for a DM to have to sort through, IMHO and I agree with you that it was just ways to sell more books. But that is their job. And some people really dig that stuff.
4E is designed from the ground up to be bloated (supplement). If you want some classes/monsters/etc that are traditionally associated with D&D, they will not available in the first round of books, as they traditionally are in D&D.
I have to tell you that I am amused by your statement about the classes/monsters/etc that are "traditionally in D&D" since it's changed with every version... :-) I remember when Dwarf was a class...
But that is their job.
Agreed, and I'm not complaining about it, esp considering that I didn't buy into the notion that we were going to only have the PHBs/MMs/DMGs and that's it as far as supplements.
|
|
I personally don't have a problem with supplements. I think supporting the game is a great thing. And the nature of that support means different things to different people.
The problem, in my mind, has been that when they offer something to support the game, it doesn't tie in well with the other things they've designed to support the game. You're left with a hodgepodge of systems that don't work terribly well together, and each DM has to cobble it together into some kind of cohesive whole.
That's a problem, and I don't understand what they're doing to fix it. I'd have happily paid money for information that I already have to make it work better. They could have done some streamlining of optional material.
I understand that not everyone buys many books. And I think that it is great that for 3rd edition you could use just the core rules and have a lot of fun gaming. And I like that in 3rd edition, you can buy literally thousands of dollars of expansions and supplements and try to fit them all into your game. But I with that when they presented a lot of this stuff they made integration easier. Using the Tome of Magic as a stand alone book kind of works, but trying to use it as a magic system with other magic doesn't work well. The Spell Compendium is a great resource, but it actually means I have to do twice as much work when I make a spell caster because I have to go through all the spells in the PHB AND the SC. I wouldn't mind paying for a Wizard's Spell Book that had all the wizard spells. If they go crazy they can have a Volume 2 and a Volume 3. And there could be a book of 'The Answer to Cleric's Prayers - Collected Divine Spells Vol 1'.
I think they keep putting it all together into a junky whole so that players that play one class will still get something out of every book. But $30 for the one feat that is useful to you isn't a very cost effective method.
In any case, I don't see 4th edition as solving the problems that the designers have laid out with 3rd edition, except in a very superficial sense, and that is also easily accomplished with 'house rules' or a patch. 3rd edition is an animal with a lot of life left. Some people want to take it behind the shed and shoot it. I don't know why, but I do oppose it.
I'm not sure that the rules can do anything about a bad DM.
See my comments a full page ago.
If POL is the way to go, and Greyhawk-lite was bad, tell'em to stop stealing from Greyhawk for 4e. Its sickening the lack of support greyhawk got, and now to watch them pick the bones for the POL setting of 4e.
What are they stealing from Greyhawk? I know theyr'e including Pelor in the list of gods, but that's the only thing I've heard that is Greyhawk specific to come down the pipe.
Ummm, on page 3 you were talking about marketing and ownership, so I don't know what that has to do with this particular topic.
And I read your other posts about how your DM sucked, but I still don't see anything that responds to my comments.
If you have a link, I'll look at it.
Ummm .... one page ago.
they (Wizards) can never make ... my railroady DM ... "better."
|
|
I've decided that Nick Logue is probably right. The DMG is probably quite literally 'titties'. Your DM gets so distracted by them titties that he isn't constantly trying to prove his superiority relative to the players so every NPC 'chick' will want him.
So, maybe WotC can make a DM not suck.
This may be a good idea. If every DM is burying their head in the DMG then a switch to 4th can't be far behind.
I've decided that Nick Logue is probably right.
I hope so. I mean the top minds of role playing today worked on it. They have the top financial resources at their disposal. They have 30 years of books to reference and see what worked and what didn't, not just D&D, but every game ever produced. They've had two solid years where people were working on this as their full time job. No other company can even come close to matching that. Hell, most companies (if they have a full time staff) can't even do half or even a quarter of that.
If the DMG isn't the single finest RPG book produced to date, I will be disappointed. (Even if I am still doubtful that the game will be D&D.)
|
|
What they do with the core rules doesn't bother me, it's just a game system, and 3.5 will continue to be supported by companies for another year or two I bet.
However, the changes to Forgotten Realms.. yeah I'd be rude, crude, and very impolite given the chance. Even if I don't play in the new timeline, the novel line will be effected as well, so it's not like I can do my own thing and everything is normal, the old Realms will be gone in 2009 when all the 3E based trilogies end.
I am looking forward to 4E.
We have all have experienced the shortcomings of 3.5E and most of us have house ruled around them. It is a good system but it could be better.
Mike Mearls knows his $#!t. Baker knows his $#!t. Heinsoo cowrote the FRCS and I think he knows his $#!t. Logue knows his $#!t and says that it is good. There is a whole slew of other people whose products are topnotch and enjoyable who are in on this expensive, time consuming project and I am looking forward to seeing what these folks can do with my favorite game. In all liklihood this will be D&D's best shot. In the future there might not be the talent, the money and time all in the same place to do a project like this.
There are a lot of things that "I wish..." like production schedules that were friendlier to independent publishers, that WotC was more forthcoming with information, that Dungeon and Dragon and Pathfinder and Game Mastery were all in print at the same time, but it is what it is.
I wonder if Paizo was included on this project and if the magazines were still in print with snapshots and sneek peeks at what was coming out if the anti 4E movement would be what it is.
"The Dude abides." and so will Paizo. I look forward to thier 4E contribution.
|
I am looking forward to 4E.
We have all have experienced the shortcomings of 3.5E and most of us have house ruled around them. It is a good system but it could be better.
Mike Mearls knows his $#!t. Baker knows his $#!t. Heinsoo cowrote the FRCS and I think he knows his $#!t. Logue knows his $#!t and says that it is good. There is a whole slew of other people whose products are topnotch and enjoyable who are in on this expensive, time consuming project and I am looking forward to seeing what these folks can do with my favorite game. In all liklihood this will be D&D's best shot. In the future there might not be the talent, the money and time all in the same place to do a project like this.
There are a lot of things that "I wish..." like production schedules that were friendlier to independent publishers, that WotC was more forthcoming with information, that Dungeon and Dragon and Pathfinder and Game Mastery were all in print at the same time, but it is what it is.
I wonder if Paizo was included on this project and if the magazines were still in print with snapshots and sneek peeks at what was coming out if the anti 4E movement would be what it is.
"The Dude abides." and so will Paizo. I look forward to thier 4E contribution.
Best post I have ever read on this forum.
I've decided that Nick Logue is probably right.I hope so. I mean the top minds of role playing today worked on it. They have the top financial resources at their disposal. They have 30 years of books to reference and see what worked and what didn't, not just D&D, but every game ever produced. They've had two solid years where people were working on this as their full time job. No other company can even come close to matching that. Hell, most companies (if they have a full time staff) can't even do half or even a quarter of that.
If the DMG isn't the single finest RPG book produced to date, I will be disappointed. (Even if I am still doubtful that the game will be D&D.)
Whilst the following question might be arguably loaded, and the respondent potentially biased, I thought that the following quote from the Pathfinder Chat of the 12th of February, 2008, might be of interest. (Many thanks to Lilith for finding it and supplying it to me from the full version of the transcript.):
Out of 4E DMG & GM Gems, Nick Logue, who has seen both books apparently thinks that DM Gems is more use to those running the game. (I am willing to concede that just how much this proves, given that Nick Logue is a member of the Werecabbages, is open to debate, but he does seem to me to be a lot more enthusiastic about GM Gems than the 4E DMG.)‹Mad Geologist› Nicholas Logue: Do you think that the 4E DMG or the GM Gems product is better for the us of DMs?"
‹Nicolas Logue!!!› DM GEMS!!!"
‹Nicolas Logue!!!› Just sayin."
‹Nicolas Logue!!!› It's a sexy little book."
‹Nicolas Logue!!!› Well...you do the math...one was written by WotC...the other by the MIGHTY MIGHTY WERECABBAGES! It's a simple equation.
Ouch.
One more thing- someone mentioned that 4e doesn't address the concept of "Bloat". I don't exactly know what "Bloat" means to that poster, but 4e's main purpose is to get rid of niche rules and overly complicated subsystems, which is my definition of the word bloat.This is not 4e's main purpose.
4e's main purpose is to increase shareholder wealth.
There's allready a splatbook on the schedule.
Exactly. And, such a boring title it has. But the title also tells you what kind of game 4E D&D is turning into:
Martial Power
That's it. A book, obviously, on more "super powers", paragon paths, and feats for all the martial classes in D&D. It'll probably chuck in a new class or two, as well.
Now, the first splatbook for D&D had a much more impressive title and did much more than give your character a bunch of abilities. Sword&Fist guided players on how to better play your Fighter and Monk or an interesting one, while for DMs it helped with bringing new warrior-type material to their settings like chariot races and gladiator fighting.
My biggest hate from some 4E-pros is the nerve they have to complain about "bloat" with 3E, yet you're going to see it happen all over again with 4E. Then they'll complain about 4E's bloat and be happy about 5E's new changes in about a 4 to 5 years.
WotC stated it many times, "crunch" sells a lot and that's what 4E will be bloated with: super-cool powers for everyone at every level and at a much simpler ruleset.
Honestly, I am really waiting for 5th Edition's rules---it'll be played with a coin-toss and a group of D&D players simply stating what their characters are doing. Someone can object to it, (DM or other players, depending on the situation) and it's settled with a coin toss.
The End.
Why? Because WoW players don't like math and reading books and rules. They just like making stuff up about their super-cool character.
And WotC needs more cash flow because 4E isn't making as much as it should be, according to Hasbro
Why? Because WoW players don't like math and reading books and rules. They just like making stuff up about their super-cool character.
This is Why I Can't Take Most of the Complaints Seriously.
Really. Any other thread I would have just ignored this. You just had to take this moment to randomly attack WoW players.
I like Galactica better.That's the worst analogy I've ever seen. Everyone knows Janeway is the best captain in Star Trek canon.
Take that back! Or I will unleash a mass of transphasic photon torpedoes that will knock you into warp 11!!!!!!!
*Random frothing at the mouth until he wears himself out and goes to sleep*
** spoiler omitted **
Neverever - Firefly of course.
Keep in mind, just like any marketing, when we say the 4e game is better, we are saying we think it's better. We also think a lot of people with agree with us.
Marketing. I'm very interested in marketing and company communications (it's part of my job) - and I don't think I have ever witnessed a worse marketing in a new product. I guess the Edsel made it worse, but that was long before my time.
4.0 "could" be a good game, but the horrible first impression it made, without showing anything of its values (if there are any, I don't know), has destroyed the product-"believe" of a huge part of it's customer base - including me. It would not be the first good product that tanks (?) (if it tanks) (don't know if tanks is the right word, guess you know what i mean) due to incredible bad marketing - and we still don't know IF it is a good product (Does anybody here know if the Edsel was technically a good car?).*
Spending some gold pieces months before the announcement on a marketing agency would have be a quite bright idea ... we (my gaming group, which consists to 80% of commercial-marketing-agency-guys-and-girls) spend 20 minutes of brain-storming about this theme just for fun and had a bundle of usable and working marketing-campaign-ideas. But that's our JOB, we CAN do such things - we CAN'T make rules and RPGs - so why has wizards a marketing obviously made by people who CAN make RPGs - but definitely CANNOT make any good marketing?
*Just remembered another example - a german snack trademark which was so famous, that every product of this kind was named after it switched its name one or two years ago ... *pain*
|
|
Why? Because WoW players don't like math and reading books and rules. They just like making stuff up about their super-cool character.
Uh, you obviously know so very little about WoW and the folks that play it. They actually do quite a bit of math, they read quite a bit about their game (on the web mostly), and they MUST understand the rules of the game to play it well.
Go talk to the folks in a hardcore raiding guild some time. I think you will be surprised just how far you missed the mark.
Go talk to the folks in a hardcore raiding guild some time. I think you will be surprised just how far you missed the mark.
I've lived with 3 to 4 members of various hardcore raiding guilds. And as much as I hate to support Razz, he didn't miss the mark by much.
Only one or three members of a hardcore raiding guild do anything to promote the understanding and knowledge of the game. Everyone else "leeches off of their intellectual property."
|
|
Go talk to the folks in a hardcore raiding guild some time. I think you will be surprised just how far you missed the mark.I've lived with 3 to 4 members of various hardcore raiding guilds. And as much as I hate to support Razz, he didn't miss the mark by much.
Only one or three members of a hardcore raiding guild do anything to promote the understanding and knowledge of the game. Everyone else "leeches off of their intellectual property."
But to be in a top class raiding guild you must know the game at a deep level. There are some whip smart people playing WoW.