|
People thinking that 4e is like MMO's is their opinion and can be seen as making sense from their point of view..
So don't go to hard on their opinion. just say I disagree with that opinion and and maybe say why and leave it at that.. ;-)
Look, if you want to discuss the 4e=MMO thing then start a thread and put forth your points in a civil manner. But when you (not you specifically - the non specific you) bring out the 4e=MMO thing as a snipe in a thread that has no relation to your point then it is no longer an opinion but an attack - regardless of the little smiley.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
Look, if you want to discuss the 4e=MMO thing then start a thread and put forth your points in a civil manner. But when you (not you specifically - the non specific you) bring out the 4e=MMO thing as a snipe in a thread that has no relation to your point then it is no longer an opinion but an attack - regardless of the little smiley.People thinking that 4e is like MMO's is their opinion and can be seen as making sense from their point of view..
So don't go to hard on their opinion. just say I disagree with that opinion and and maybe say why and leave it at that.. ;-)
Actually, I think the troll made a criticism regarding MMOs and got shat on for it. It's relevant.
|
|
Actually, I think the troll made a criticism regarding MMOs and got shat on for it. It's relevant.Look, if you want to discuss the 4e=MMO thing then start a thread and put forth your points in a civil manner. But when you (not you specifically - the non specific you) bring out the 4e=MMO thing as a snipe in a thread that has no relation to your point then it is no longer an opinion but an attack - regardless of the little smiley.People thinking that 4e is like MMO's is their opinion and can be seen as making sense from their point of view..
So don't go to hard on their opinion. just say I disagree with that opinion and and maybe say why and leave it at that.. ;-)
SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSTTTTTTTTTT TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRREEEE EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEETTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC CHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSTTTTTTTTTT TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRREEEE EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEETTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC CHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH.Actually, I think the troll made a criticism regarding MMOs and got shat on for it. It's relevant.Look, if you want to discuss the 4e=MMO thing then start a thread and put forth your points in a civil manner. But when you (not you specifically - the non specific you) bring out the 4e=MMO thing as a snipe in a thread that has no relation to your point then it is no longer an opinion but an attack - regardless of the little smiley.People thinking that 4e is like MMO's is their opinion and can be seen as making sense from their point of view..
So don't go to hard on their opinion. just say I disagree with that opinion and and maybe say why and leave it at that.. ;-)
You hurt my eyes, damn you.
EDIT: ;-)
|
Look, if you want to discuss the 4e=MMO thing then start a thread and put forth your points in a civil manner. But when you (not you specifically - the non specific you) bring out the 4e=MMO thing as a snipe in a thread that has no relation to your point then it is no longer an opinion but an attack - regardless of the little smiley.People thinking that 4e is like MMO's is their opinion and can be seen as making sense from their point of view..
So don't go to hard on their opinion. just say I disagree with that opinion and and maybe say why and leave it at that.. ;-)
In general I agree with you...
But there was a long chain about 4e and MMO feel that was part of this thread..so it as valid for it to be here.
By the way that chain started with a 4e Fan....
Edit: Not only that the Video in question was making fun of people who thought 4e is to much like a video game...
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
Look, if you want to discuss the 4e=MMO thing then start a thread and put forth your points in a civil manner. But when you (not you specifically - the non specific you) bring out the 4e=MMO thing as a snipe in a thread that has no relation to your point then it is no longer an opinion but an attack - regardless of the little smiley.People thinking that 4e is like MMO's is their opinion and can be seen as making sense from their point of view..
So don't go to hard on their opinion. just say I disagree with that opinion and and maybe say why and leave it at that.. ;-)
Seriously though, CWM, is this what counts as an attack these days? A personal attack? An attack that gets people offended?
That's like being offended by a cartoon dragon pooping on its former customers.
Actually, I think the troll made a criticism regarding MMOs and got shat on for it. It's relevant.Look, if you want to discuss the 4e=MMO thing then start a thread and put forth your points in a civil manner. But when you (not you specifically - the non specific you) bring out the 4e=MMO thing as a snipe in a thread that has no relation to your point then it is no longer an opinion but an attack - regardless of the little smiley.People thinking that 4e is like MMO's is their opinion and can be seen as making sense from their point of view..
So don't go to hard on their opinion. just say I disagree with that opinion and and maybe say why and leave it at that.. ;-)
The Troll complained about 4 things.
* 4E is a money grab.
* 4E is oversimplified.
* 4E does not have Gnomes.
* 4E requires mini's.
|
|
Seriously though, CWM, is this what counts as an attack these days? A personal attack? An attack that gets people offended?
That's like being offended by a cartoon dragon pooping on its former customers.
The problem is the snipe - the comment out of left field with no context and seemingly meant to inflame the situation.
Hey, if i could apologize for WotC's poor choice of direction in their PR I would. But I am not WotC so why piss in my cornflakes because they pissed in yours?
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
Seriously though, CWM, is this what counts as an attack these days? A personal attack? An attack that gets people offended?
That's like being offended by a cartoon dragon pooping on its former customers.
The problem is the snipe - the comment out of left field with no context and seemingly meant to inflame the situation.
Hey, if i could apologize for WotC's poor choice of direction in their PR I would. But I am not WotC so why piss in my cornflakes because they pissed in yours?
I get the impression the entire 4e forum is your cornflake bowl. Seriously, criticizing the game is not a personal attack on you.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
Actually, I think the troll made a criticism regarding MMOs and got shat on for it. It's relevant.Look, if you want to discuss the 4e=MMO thing then start a thread and put forth your points in a civil manner. But when you (not you specifically - the non specific you) bring out the 4e=MMO thing as a snipe in a thread that has no relation to your point then it is no longer an opinion but an attack - regardless of the little smiley.People thinking that 4e is like MMO's is their opinion and can be seen as making sense from their point of view..
So don't go to hard on their opinion. just say I disagree with that opinion and and maybe say why and leave it at that.. ;-)
The Troll complained about 4 things.
* 4E is a money grab.
* 4E is oversimplified.
* 4E does not have Gnomes.
* 4E requires mini's.
I stand corrected. Pax Veritas has led me astray.
I will rephrase, the original poster made a comment about MMOs and thus it is within the scope of this thread.
I just posted on another thread after sighting Sebastian, inviting him over here, and to bring some marshmallows.
If everyone's going to keep arguing, he may as well join in the fun....
"respond back" is redundant. Hope that helps. :DP.S. I'm willing to keep "replying back" as long as you feel it is helpful. I'm just a giving kind of guy.
I'm no expert but surely "back" is redundant in both of these sentences? To respond you must respond to something and to reply there must be something to reply to. If you read both sentences without the word "Back" I believe they are gramatically correct.
Elcian
They are. Hence my quotation marks about "replying back." I also essentially said the same thing twice. To be redundant. And repetitive.
Come on...work with me here. ;-)
When I said that 2nd Ed felt "dumbed down", I meant the way the core rule books were presented, with a larger font and explanations in the text simplified greatly. As far as the rules are concerned, I agree with you. TSR really should have called it a revision, and not an edition. There really wasn't enough of a difference between the two.
Little parenthesis in the discussion, for property's sake:
a new "edition" is that: picking up a book/game/whatever kind of printed material (and some software releases) and making some "revisions" to it: correcting typos, changing diagrams or tables for clearer or more accurate ones, adding some paragraphs, substracting others, etc.Calling 2nd ed an "edition" was the correct usage; it fixed and clarified some points of almost 15 years of AD&D.
3.0 would be harder to consider an "edition". Nevertheless, the 1st-2nd ed chain is still there, as most of the game math crunch is directly related to the previous edition (though instead of the tables of previous eds, we got easier math formulae with the roll + bonus vs. DC combination). "D20" is a "rounded older D&D without the pain of having six pages of frequent tables to use". Other things change, like monster mechanics, but those could be seen as detailed application of the rules (detailing monsters as NPCs). The issue is quite open.
3.5 is an "edition" of 3.0 in the good traditional sense.
4e is clearly not an "edition" in the normal sense. The roll + DC bonus pattern has totally deviated from previous incarnations in the way parameters are calculated (see HPs, fixed skill slots instead of Int-dependency, plus the way the 1/2 + level and the power system mechanics change the balance of character bonuses and penalties). You can call it something else, like a "version". The inspiration for the 3 > 3.5 > 4 sequence seems to be based on computer OS software (a la windows 95, 2000, XP, Vista), than in what an edition actually is. In this case of semantics, 4e uses a decidedly software approach in the marketing of the product. Compare Vista to Windows 3.1. OK, it's still Windows, but for sure it is not a new edition of the old OS I used in the early 90s. It is a version which still uses some base elements (the graphic interface mainly) of it. An edition implies a continuity, as seen in the usage of the word in the book world. Calling D&D 4 "4th Edition" is probably a wise marketing option, but not especially accurate. I won't call it "just another game", as games are more than rules and there is a flavor and background effort to keep continuity, but it is a new rule system indeed, not a "revised an improved" one.
Flawed as 2nd ed got (mostly with the annoying splatbooks and a dearth of good adventures), it did a good job (in the basic manuals) at being a "revised edition" of AD&D.
3.0 would be harder to consider an "edition". Nevertheless, the 1st-2nd ed chain is still there, as most of the game math crunch is directly related to the previous edition (though instead of the tables of previous eds, we got easier math formulae with the roll + bonus vs. DC combination). "D20" is a "rounded older D&D without the pain of having six pages of frequent tables to use". Other things change, like monster mechanics, but those could be seen as detailed application of the rules (detailing monsters as NPCs). The issue is quite open.
3.5 is an "edition" of 3.0 in the good traditional sense.4e is clearly not an "edition" in the normal sense. The roll + DC bonus pattern has totally deviated from previous incarnations in the way parameters are calculated (see HPs, fixed skill slots instead of Int-dependency, plus the way the 1/2 + level and the power system mechanics change the balance of character bonuses and penalties).
I honestly don't know how you got from A to B to C here.
I find it especially perplexing that you seem to be using the skill system as you major example with all the references to DCs.
Here's a trivia question for you.
In 1st edition whats the DC to climb a wall? Whats the DC to utilize Herbalism?
Consider the two options pre and post the release of Wilderness and Dungioneers Survival Guide. Same question but consider the two in 2nd edition.
Now consider what the DC is to climb a wall in 3rd and do the same in 4th.
For another example consider the role that miniatures played in the game in 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th edition.
For a third consider the role played by a characters ability scores, especially were they max out.
[distraction attempt]As 'someone' is singular, the pronoun 'they' is incorrect, strictly speaking. You could have said 'people' and 'they' or 'someone' and 'he or she'. ... [/distraction attempt]** spoiler omitted **
Actually, the use of "they" as a singular pronoun in cases where gender is mixed or uncertain is well established, going back, oh, ~300 years or so in the English language. The bias against it is a relatively modern phenomenon.
I honestly don't know how you got from A to B to C here.I find it especially perplexing that you seem to be using the skill system as you major example with all the references to DCs.
It was in 2nd ed and 1st ed after OA, DSG, etc: "Non-weapon-proficiency" = skill: it was "roll under your connected ability with d20". A Climb roll was "roll under STR or DEX". You could buy "extra slots" in a NWP you already had, getting +1s. The DM could assign ad lib bonuses and penalties according to the difficulty of the task. That translates into a very simple and rough system of DCs which was streamlined in 3.0 with the decision of making "all good rolls high rolls" and fixing a more defined criterion for advancement of skills and DC adjudication.
Indeed D&D 4 skills are almost identical to 3.+ in the math system. The inclusion of the skill challenge, nevertheless, creates a different approach in many levels, which is a totally new bird.
Again, I said that I did not find clear whether 3.0+ would be an "edition" or not. It is noteworthy that Wizards changed the brand name: it was "D&D 3rd edition", not "AD&D 3rd edition". On the other hand, it is quite revealing that Wizards did create a pretty detailed conversion document for turning 2ed characters into 3e ones: the math behind powers, skills, abilities and spells was convertible while keeping a more or less proportional balance. You cannot do that in 4, for sure. Some notes have been given, but conversion has to be based in background elements of the character. It is quite hard to see something is an "edition" when you cannot convert previous materials (like characters) with some simple rule conversion guidelines, but you have to re-create them from scratch.
In that, 3.0 was closer to 2nd ed. We can talk of "degrees of separation" instead of absolutes: 3.0 had a bit of the "new edition" element, 4 has almost nothing left. The terminology is there, but the mechanics are too changed to account for considering it an edition.
If you think that:
a) Wizards doesn't deserve to try and make money
b) The video game criticism is valid
c) 4th Edition is over-simplified
a) Wizards deserves to try and make money. Everybody deserves to try and make money
b & c) I've played the game, moneyed with the mechanics, reviewed it thoroughly as both a long time gamer & book seller, and had multiple conversations with WoW players about the changes.
The video game criticism IS valid. The monster manual reads like a list of stats you'd see in a video game guide: next to no flavor, with just a wall of numbers.
As for oversimplification, I seem to remember my wizards having spells.
I've seen a few of these videos; none of them were funny (I'm not a big fan of potty humor). They all just seemed to be taking cheap potshots at older editions and playing to the lowest common denominator.
Okay, treating the halfling orphanage like a salad bar was pretty entertaining, but I'll leave it at that
The creatures lacking flavour- Ok, they could've done with a little ditty about the critters but really, unless your completely new to the fantasy genre you have your own take on the monsters, their tactics, attitudes etc. As an experienced DM I'm happy to fill in the blanks but the newbe DM's might struggle a bit( there is a lot of info in the DM's guide to cover this area from what I've read).
Dragons are powerfull, intelligent( greens and blacks are cunning) whilst red are aggressive. Zombies are stupid and slow, mummies are as per the films, skeletons are direct and quick, vampires are intelligent and patient. In short be inspired by the books and films that got you into the game for creating flavour and stop wasting book pages with too much waffle.As for the Oversimplification query- previous mages could at later level rule the game world for about an hour of game world time with their top heavy spells whilst the cleric could do likewise on a melee encounter.....no longer. They are both brought back to reasonable levels. The fighter fights using martial tactics, the wizard can do the impossible( fly, create rings of fire and other things) and the cleric can heal or aid the group with the blessings of his deity.
The only real loss is clerical flavour with the domain loss but even that was more mechanical than flavour in 3rd and 3.5 ed. Most cleric players looked at the list for domains and after being uninspired by the more 'flavourable' lists went for the more useful domain powers or even changed deity for better domains.
|
|
Meh. Whatever.My thoughts exactly.
Ive moved on.
I personally have no feelings at all about what Wizards of the Coast does in any way, shape, form, or manner.
Pax, and all the others....remember the opposite of Love isn't really Hate, Its ambivalence.
The best possible thing you can do for yourself and the gaming community is let it go.
They lost my business a long time ago. I won't lose a single moment of sleep caring what they do now, or in the future.
No offense but if you didn't care you wouldn't feel the need to mention it over & over & over again in a multitude of threads that are about a game you apparently don't like.
(Although I'll give you that this particular thread is more about what people consider funny or appropriate for a company to take the mickey out of.)
I dont take offense. Its a fair comment. Actually my post was towards trying to stop the anger. Its counter productive.
And I really don't care ;) Trust me on this...My anger has subsided and now has become ambivalence.
|
|
Until they put something out that you want.Meh. Whatever.My thoughts exactly.
Ive moved on.
I personally have no feelings at all about what Wizards of the Coast does in any way, shape, form, or manner.
Pax, and all the others....remember the opposite of Love isn't really Hate, Its ambivalence.
The best possible thing you can do for yourself and the gaming community is let it go.
They lost my business a long time ago. I won't lose a single moment of sleep caring what they do now, or in the future.
doubtful, since I don't even follow what they produce anymore, but it's a fair comment...If someone whose opinion I trust said "You have to check this out"...then Id consider it.
|
|
I'll tell you what I'd buy from WotC in a heartbeat: PDFs of the 3.5 books. I don't know why they aren't making these available, as they are not supporting the edition anymore. I can buy anything from previous editions in PDF form for about $4. I despise IP ripoff/pirate uploading places, and I have yet to patronize any of them, but the longer it takes to get legitimate PDFs up the more the dark side tempts me. It shouldn't bother WotC to make them available, and the good PR/constant revenue stream certainly wouldn't hurt.
Until they put something out that you want.
Im with you there, I wont even pirate anything. Its not fair to the hard working folks who produce things.
|
|
Actually, it was meant to highlight the fact that these sorts of personal corporate boycotts tend not to last longer than it takes the company to release something that the boycotter would want to buy anyway.Until they put something out that you want.Unless they put something out that he wants.
"Until" implies a certain inevitability, that everyone who dislikes 4E will eventually come around and embrace it, which I'm sure you didn't intend to suggest. Oh, no. Not you.
hehe, all I can say is 'You don't know me that well to make that assumption'
I dont consider it a boycott, I am not angry over their decisions any longer. Now I just have no interest in 4e. Its good for some folks, its not my cup of tea. So until they produce 5e *shrugs*, but by then Ill be so deeply immersed in pathfinder ;)
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
Actually, the use of "they" as a singular pronoun in cases where gender is mixed or uncertain is well established, going back, oh, ~300 years or so in the English language. The bias against it is a relatively modern phenomenon.
[distraction attempt]As 'someone' is singular, the pronoun 'they' is incorrect, strictly speaking. You could have said 'people' and 'they' or 'someone' and 'he or she'. ... [/distraction attempt]** spoiler omitted **
Yeah, I know, ... actually, I think its use goes back further than that. The bias against it is older than your great-grandmother but in terms of language that is relatively recent.
I was trying to derail an argument and was working with what I had. ;-)
"No-ah 'gain, Jar Jar. You-sa goin' to da Bosses. You-sa in big doo-doo dis time!"
ROFL!
I honestly don't know how you got from A to B to C here.I find it especially perplexing that you seem to be using the skill system as you major example with all the references to DCs.
It was in 2nd ed and 1st ed after OA, DSG, etc: "Non-weapon-proficiency" = skill: it was "roll under your connected ability with d20". A Climb roll was "roll under STR or DEX". You could buy "extra slots" in a NWP you already had, getting +1s. The DM could assign ad lib bonuses and penalties according to the difficulty of the task. That translates into a very simple and rough system of DCs which was streamlined in 3.0 with the decision of making "all good rolls high rolls" and fixing a more defined criterion for advancement of skills and DC adjudication.
Indeed D&D 4 skills are almost identical to 3.+ in the math system. The inclusion of the skill challenge, nevertheless, creates a different approach in many levels, which is a totally new bird.
Again, I said that I did not find clear whether 3.0+ would be an "edition" or not. It is noteworthy that Wizards changed the brand name: it was "D&D 3rd edition", not "AD&D 3rd edition". On the other hand, it is quite revealing that Wizards did create a pretty detailed conversion document for turning 2ed characters into 3e ones: the math behind powers, skills, abilities and spells was convertible while keeping a more or less proportional balance. You cannot do that in 4, for sure. Some notes have been given, but conversion has to be based in background elements of the character. It is quite hard to see something is an "edition" when you cannot convert previous materials (like characters) with some simple rule conversion guidelines, but you have to re-create them from scratch.
In that, 3.0 was closer to 2nd ed. We can talk of "degrees of separation" instead of absolutes: 3.0 had a bit of the "new edition" element, 4 has almost nothing left. The terminology is there, but the mechanics are too changed to account for considering it an...
The ability to convert characters does not determine whether or not something qualifies as a new edition. That's just a standard you've made up on the spot to suit your point.
The ability to convert characters does not determine whether or not something qualifies as a new edition. That's just a standard you've made up on the spot to suit your point.
First, Scott, could you lay off the snark? I've seen it in every single one of your posts I've read recently and it doesn't help to make any points. Note this is not a flame or an attack, its advice. People will be more likely to completely disregard your posts out of hand with that kind of attitude.
I would have to disagree, one of the definitions of 'Edition' is a similar thing. I think the point that poster was trying to make is that 4e, by being incompatible with the previous editions is more like an entirely new game than a new edition. The entire rule-set, aside from the usage of words like skills, feats, etc...is entirely different than any previous edition. 4e even changes the paradigm of disparity between classes and their roles. This shift is what makes 4e so favored by some, reviled by others.
There is something to be said that 4e may feel more like old school D&D, the simpler rules and ease of learning the game are major points of similarity.
All in all though, the level of roleplaying and the overall feel of the game being run depends more on the GM and players than it does on the rule-set. Take that factor from it and look at it from a purely mechanical sense and 4e is a very different system.
The ability to convert characters does not determine whether or not something qualifies as a new edition. That's just a standard you've made up on the spot to suit your point.
Sorry, but I deal with "editions" in other areas of my life than fantasy RPGs. If I choose a language instruction manual for my teaching at the university, I can go for the "2nd edition" of the "1st edition" I used some years ago when I was a grad student. I do that because I know the book, I have used before, I know what materials it contains for different levels of learning, what approach exercises take; I actually expect most of the original exercises to be there (some changes are due, as it is a second edition). If the materials differ to such an extent that my previous knowledge of "1st edition" is unrelated to "2nd edition" (in my example, I have to totally redo, not just adapt, my graded language sessions), I would return the book and complaint, as it should not have been marketed as an "edition" of previous work. Conversion is therefore a pertinent issue in defining is something is an edition or not.
Maybe you are responding in this way because you assume I am doing the "it's a different game" rote. I am not. In the same measure that I would say that both AD&D and BXCMI D&D were both D&D (though at the time TSR marketed them as different games, semantics, semantics), I did not say that 4e is not D&D, as other things besides the basic rules system make up a game: a certain flavor, iconic elements, a particular approach to themes, etc. I just think that 4e is, for the first time, a D&D set which makes no attempt at being an edition. 3.x is quite close to that level of distance, but it did an attempt.
Taking a little party of 5 pcs and a simple published short module (without major high-level NPCs), you barely need converting from 1st ed to 2nd ed; converting to 3.x was quite possible (there are good examples available) and did not consume a huge amount of time, nor require excessive re-doing of encounters, re-castings of monsters, etc.
If you remember, my original post was about nuancing that 2nd ed, against an opinion, was indeed a "new edition" and that nowadays people are using "editions" in a sense more similar to the Mac OS / Windows whatever numbering thing than in the editorial sense. Hence, the term "edition" has become more of a marketing teaser than a reality. And no need to get 4e-defensive, the same sort of inaccuracy has been done by other companies, check Shadowrun for instance, or the different Warhammer products, both RPG and otherwise.
Do note that I am not saying the 4e is not D&D in my above post. To me (and I am sure there are plenty of others here than feel differently) its far more different a system than 3rd edition is.
Posters on some of the other threads here recently have really been trying to promote some solidarity of purpose on these boards, which would be a good thing to see. Good discussion about 4e or Pathfinder in their respective threads, without interfering with each other would be to everyone's benefit as I see it.
|
The Holy Roman Empire - neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire.... [...discuss amongst yourselves!...]
Fourth Edition Dungeons & Dragons - neither the fourth edition, nor an edition, nor dungeons and dragons....[...discuss amongst yourselves!...]
*grins*
In all seriousness, as the OP of this thread I posted immediately following watching the lame-ass video, and felt even sicker as a consumer. It was like I was insulted by a corporation, after spending nearly 8 years (with wotc) and almost $5,000 on their materials. But the money issue aside, I felt insulted - whether it was to demean my intelligence, discount my gaming experience and tradition, or belittle my opinions as a consumer - the fact is I felt insulted. And as a reality, my perception as a consumer was a negative one toward that company.
So, again, now that a few days have passed I've read through everyone's comments in this thread and find that there's a large portion that feel the same way, a portion who are defending 4th edition (even though its the behavior of the company this time that I find distasteful), and a portion who pretty much say Move On dot Com.
I will not move on. And am not shaken by what posts on other Web sites say. I will not move on, because as consumers our perceptions should matter a great deal. For years, the growing mystique around wotc is that its okay for them to treat their customer base as sheep, mindless followers - and we shouldn't stand for that. In reaction, many have already placed their stake in the ground with 3.5 and its newest incarnation (truly, its new version 3.75 called Pathfinder RPG) because thankfully the OGL has protected our game from being monopolized by a company that would insult its more senior, seasoned consumers. If wotc cannot show respect for their consumers, we will support our game where it is cared for the most, where the customers are treated the best - PAIZO.com.
And of all the posts layed out here, I was most impressed by Charles Evans 25 when he pointed out that wotc actually took time away from promoting their game, to demonstrate a red dragon virtually s%~~ on a consumer view. Perhaps this struck a nerve, but their poorly selected reaction shows their true colors. Many of us have professions where customer focus, though more scarce these days, is more important than ever. The way a company treats its customers should help determine whether they receive our business or if we take our business elsewhere. In this case, as Dread points out in his posts, wotc is dead, and it is they who have finally s#!# on themselves (by way of this video).
I have to say, I love 4th edition but I didn't find the video that funny (remember, that's what this thread was supposed to be about, not more 3e vs 4e). It's not that I took any offense to it, it just seemed low brow and lacking in anything that was really funny. I've shown all the other ones to my friends who have been playing a 4e game with me (and some that have not been) but I don't think I'll point out this one.
Though the Triumph the Insult Dragon in this thread did make me laugh in reference to that.
Really... is toilet humor that funny (or insulting) to everyone?
As a 3.5 player/DM who has no interest in playing any other version of the game (whether 4e or PfRPG), I didn't find the cartoon offensive. I found it kind of stupid, which is what I have found most of them to be, with the exception of the gnome (the tiefling was stupid). I can see how someone that trolls internet sites and routinely complains about an edition and company that they have no interest in playing or purchasing from could be offended by the cartoon, but since I am not one of those people I wasn't.
Blah, blah, blah...Fourth Edition Dungeons & Dragons - neither the fourth edition, nor an edition, nor dungeons and dragons...blah, blah, blah...lame-ass video...blah, blah, blah...I felt insulted - whether it was to demean my intelligence, discount my gaming experience and tradition, or belittle my opinions as a consumer...blah, blah, blah...the growing mystique around wotc is that its okay for them to treat their customer base as sheep, mindless followers...blah, blah, blah...the OGL has protected our game from being monopolized by a company that would insult its more senior, seasoned consumers...blah, blah, blah....
Flap, flap, flap...pooooooop...SPLAT!!
...I was quite vocal on the Wizards boards during the run-up...
Oooh -- good way to get jumped on, in a major way.
My experience has been very negative over there. They can make Paizo's very worst look like Gloria Vanderbilt.
The ability to convert characters does not determine whether or not something qualifies as a new edition. That's just a standard you've made up on the spot to suit your point.
Yet another dissenting opinion properly classified -- worthless and beneath consideration.
We'll just stick with your standard -- or WotC's... it's so hard to tell the difference.
...I was quite vocal on the Wizards boards during the run-up...Oooh -- good way to get jumped on, in a major way.
My experience has been very negative over there. They can make Paizo's very worst look like Gloria Vanderbilt.
I've in some ways classified them as the Paizo forum from an alternate dimension. I would describe them, in many ways, as the same. The sentiments about 4e and 3.5 are reversed, but it has somewhat of the same atmosphere. Instead of Paizo getting a significant amount of support, on the WotC forums Paizo is on the end of trash talk with almost no one doing anything to stop it or even complain about it. Some people complain that the moderators are not doing nearly enough to stop the war threads going on there and others say that the mods are wielding their power in favor of the other side.
I am disturbed to think that I might describe the atmosphere of the WotC forums and the 4e Paizo forums as similar. I suspect others have different impressions than me though.
The ability to convert characters does not determine whether or not something qualifies as a new edition. That's just a standard you've made up on the spot to suit your point.Yet another dissenting opinion properly classified -- worthless and beneath consideration.
We'll just stick with your standard -- or WotC's... it's so hard to tell the difference.
The difference is that the trash-talking going on in the WotC forums over Pathfinder is taking place on the 4th Edition forums. Where 4th Edition is supposed to be discussed. Not Pathfinder.
The trash-talking going on here is occurring in the 4th Edition forum, where 4th Edition is supposed to be discussed.
In other words, why are people bringing up Pathfinder on 4th Edition boards?
The difference is that the trash-talking going on in the WotC forums over Pathfinder is taking place on the 4th Edition forums. Where 4th Edition is supposed to be discussed. Not Pathfinder.
The trash-talking going on here is occurring in the 4th Edition forum, where 4th Edition is supposed to be discussed.
In other words, why are people bringing up Pathfinder on 4th Edition boards?
There are different groups that seem to bring it up.
There are people that use to as topic to bash 4e.
There are people that bring it up because it adds to the topic (talking about adventure paths bring up Pathfinder and so on).
There are people that have the apparent need to bash it (they are more likely to do this if it was being mentioned by a previous poster, but they also seemingly bash it when it hasn't had any meaningful mention on a thread).
The first group get responded to negatively. However the third group is responded to positively, supported, or just left alone.
I dislike the reasons of both the first and third group, however I am left with that the third group is worse because there is nearly no effort to stop them.
The difference is that the trash-talking going on in the WotC forums over Pathfinder is taking place on the 4th Edition forums. Where 4th Edition is supposed to be discussed. Not Pathfinder...
Does it occur to you that 'trash-talking' is inappropriate in itself, regardless of forum?
'Trash-talking' is always wrong, whether or not it's correct, regardless of who says it, no matter where they say it. Do you not know this? You never criticize it when it's on your side.
|
|
...why are people bringing up Pathfinder on 4th Edition boards?
You're kidding, right? PRPG is the fourth edition of our game and Pathfinder's creation has everything to do with 4e. 4e is not just about some new minis game they've conjured up. The so-called fourth edition involves THE WAY THEY TREAT THEIR CUSTOMERS/ THE WAY 4E WAS RELEASED/ THEIR ATTITUDE/ THEIR MARKETING/ THE DESTRUCTION OF THE FORGOTTEN REALMS/ THEIR CARELESS CHANGES TO SACRED COWS such as ABANDONMENT OF VANCIAN MAGIC OR ILLOGICAL COSMOLOGY/ THE INSULTS SLUNG AT FORMER LOYAL WOTC CONSUMERS OF 3.5/ THE IMPLIED INSULTS/ THE DISRESPECT OF GROGNARDS/ THE ATTEMPT TO MONOPOLIZE THE GAME/ THE ATTEMPTED PULLING OF THE OGL VIS A VIS THE GSL/ THE LACK OF BACKWARD COMPATIBILITY/ THE LACK OF COMPETENCE TO DELIVER AN ONLINE TABLETOP AND OTHER E-SYSTEMS ON TIME/ THEIR REDICULOUS PRICING SCHEME FOR THE DDI/ THE NON RENEW OF THE DUNGEON AND DRAGON MAGAZINES CONTRACTS FROM PAIZO/ THE MASH-UP INCOHERENCY OF THE TRADITIONS OF 30+ YEARS/ THE DUMMYING DOWN OF THE GAME/ AND THE DELAYS IN SHOWING THE GSL TO 3PPs ON TIME (WHEN THIS IS CRITICAL TO THEIR BUSINESS). So, Mr. Bets - - - apparently you read what's in between the binding of fourth edition, but have no clue as to what is between the lines.
PRPG is the fourth edition of our game and Pathfinder's creation has everything to do with 4e.
"our game"? Whose game?
Why won't this thread die already?!