|
Third Edition D&D is a good game; in fact, it's so good that some of its problems are easy to miss for long-term players—they're just part of how the game works.This is something I have heard a lot and it just bothers me. I am a long time player of 3e. I had fun, now you telling me I had problems I didn't even know about. That sentence just seems very demeaning to me. Maybe I am just being too oversensitive, but this was a theme that turned me off of 4e right away, the idea that I was not getting what I wanted out of 3ed and the wizards people were going to show me why.
I almost seems like there are two mechanics in the shope talking about me.
"Can you believe this guy, His car has no widget?"
"No widget, how could he drive it without a widget?"
"He didn't even know it was missing, HAHA"
"Wow what a moron, wait till we get him to buy a new car that has a widget, he'll thank us"Meanwhile, I'm driving my car fine...
Like power steering...I HATE power steering!!! I like to feel the road when I drive...since driving a sports car and SUV should FEEEEEL different...
make any gaming comparisons you like to my statement, Mr. Betts knows how I feel about 4dventurE...so I won't jump into the controversial aspects of this thread.
|
There is an argument for what you say. On the other hand, I've been at tables where characters dying is a downer. And 4e doesn't stop characters dying, by the way - it stops them dying in ways which are boring, like a single die roll. And dying isn't the problem as such - it is sitting there for the next two hours while the fight plays out with nothing to do as a player.
This is exactly what I am talking about when my wizard died within the first 15 minutes of the game. I had nothing to do for the remainder of the night but to reroll a new character, doodle on my paper, and get everyone snacks. Yay.
It also exactly details how, in Saturday's game, four out of six characters got to discuss the stock market with the grim reaper, but not stay for a much longer visit. It was exciting and dramatic and lent a definite touch of "OMG!" to the table.
I think this thread is more about expressing a preference, rather than saying 3e is crap.
This right here is the most important thing to remember. No one should be sitting here advocating that 4E or 3E is a superior game. I love them both, as each have certain strengths and weaknesses. I still play them both. Along with my 2E Birthright campaign and my 1E homebrew campaign. And, when PF comes out, there will be that too.
You know what really bothers me here? The fact that the interview actually used some of the most reasonable language I've seen concerning the difference between 3.5 and 4E. I get the sense that the vast majority of people debating in this thread haven't even bothered to read it - are just attacking based on the same issues that have come up time and time again before. And I'll admit - WotC have had some posts where they did seem a bit over-the-top in attacking 3rd Edition. Guess what? That ain't the case here.
Rob Heinsoo goes out of his way to talk about how exceptional 3rd Edition was, and the fact that the problems might not even be an issue for many campaigns and many gamers. Yes, he calls them problems - because he genuinely views them as such, and even designed an entire new edition of the game to solve them. It would literally be impossible to try and honestly discuss the changes made to the game without addressing the reasons for those changes. Some folks disagree with those reasons, and thats fine, but there is not a single reason to consider them an insult.
Getting offended that he considers 4E an improvement over 3rd Edition is just petty. Bringing that sort of attitude into this forum is just trolling. You can feel free to prefer 3.5 - stopping by to say that it is 'insulting' for the designers of 4E to prefer their game, however, is nonsense.
Especially given he even makes a point in talking about how some people won't prefer these changes. He specifically states that they made a deliberate move away from a really gritty, high-risk game, and that might be an issue for gamers that prefer that genre!
Very well said!
When I read the interview, my initial reaction was that it was good to see one of the WotC folks showing some respect for prior versions of the game - and relief that because of the respect Rob evidenced, this article was unlikely to cause the sort of vicious, angry anti-4E-developer reaction that much of their earlier marketing triggered. Ah, well...
|
You know what really bothers me here? The fact that the interview actually used some of the most reasonable language I've seen concerning the difference between 3.5 and 4E. I get the sense that the vast majority of people debating in this thread haven't even bothered to read it - are just attacking based on the same issues that have come up time and time again before. And I'll admit - WotC have had some posts where they did seem a bit over-the-top in attacking 3rd Edition. Guess what? That ain't the case here.
Rob Heinsoo goes out of his way to talk about how exceptional 3rd Edition was, and the fact that the problems might not even be an issue for many campaigns and many gamers. Yes, he calls them problems - because he genuinely views them as such, and even designed an entire new edition of the game to solve them. It would literally be impossible to try and honestly discuss the changes made to the game without addressing the reasons for those changes. Some folks disagree with those reasons, and thats fine, but there is not a single reason to consider them an insult.
Getting offended that he considers 4E an improvement over 3rd Edition is just petty. Bringing that sort of attitude into this forum is just trolling. You can feel free to prefer 3.5 - stopping by to say that it is 'insulting' for the designers of 4E to prefer their game, however, is nonsense.
Hi Matthew.
First, before you throw the word trolling out, understand what it entails. This is not a thread about 4ed. It is a thread to discuss the interview. That is what I am doing and giving my opinions about. I did not come into here to start a thread to cause controversy for the sake of starting an argument. That is what trolling is.Next, I made a comment on a single sentence, which I quoted from the interview, and explained why it bothered me. Then I said that it is also the general feeling I have gotten from alot of WOTC Staffers. I didn't blast his whole interview, just the part I want to express an opinion on.
Third, it dosen't btoher me that the designers support thier product. It dosen't bother me that they think it is an improvement. It bothers me that they think I should just admit the 3e had issues that I didn't even know existed. I think I should decide what worked and what didn't work for me. I liked the old grapple rules. Others didn't. It is fine to tell me that a lot of people didn't like them, so we improved them. It is not fine to tell me that I like them, but that is because you did such a good job of making them, that I don't even know they are not good.
Again, don't tell me they way I have played for the last bunch 'o years is wrong and I wasn't really having fun and you are going to fix it. Instead tell mem here is what you have changed, you feel it is a better product and it addresses many problem players had. There is a huge difference between the two attitudes.
|
My nitpicks:
That's why 4th Edition D&D is so focused on giving characters at-will abilities, as well as abilities they can use once an encounter, and abilities that are so powerful they can only be used once a day. We want all D&D characters to have the option of feeling heroic, to keep fighting and adventuring until they are truly too beat up to continue, and not to stop as soon as they have used up their only cool powers.
I kind of have a problem with this. Rob, it's called resource management, and it's a core part of D&D player strategy going back decades. I'm sorry you didn't enjoy playing D&D, a lot of us do. Your new power system feels more like building a deck than building a character.
I agree with this nitpick.
point-counterpoint vis a vis fighters at high levels
Not to bring up old arguments, but there is a disagreement in the value of high level fighters, monks (well, monks at any level, really...), rangers, barbarians, paladins (any martial weapon focused class, basically) even in the 3x fan camp. My experiences with fighters beyond 11th level are similar to Mr. Heinsoo's, so I understand where he's coming from, even if I disagree with his approach to the problem.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
You know what really bothers me here? The fact that the interview actually used some of the most reasonable language I've seen concerning the difference between 3.5 and 4E. I get the sense that the vast majority of people debating in this thread haven't even bothered to read it - are just attacking based on the same issues that have come up time and time again before. And I'll admit - WotC have had some posts where they did seem a bit over-the-top in attacking 3rd Edition. Guess what? That ain't the case here.
Mostly true. I read the article.
Rob Heinsoo goes out of his way to talk about how exceptional 3rd Edition was, and the fact that the problems might not even be an issue for many campaigns and many gamers. Yes, he calls them problems - because he genuinely views them as such, and even designed an entire new edition of the game to solve them. It would literally be impossible to try and honestly discuss the changes made to the game without addressing the reasons for those changes. Some folks disagree with those reasons, and thats fine, but there is not a single reason to consider them an insult.
True up to the point, but phrasing sometimes matters a great deal in the meaning-making process. I'm not up in arms about anything that Heinsoo says in the article, but I'm a pretty laid back kinda guy. It is certainly possible to talk about changes made in a more diplomatic way. Some choose not to, thinking that is unnecessary double-talk. Compare, for instance:
Statement A: "Many gamers we talked to said it wasn't very much fun being a low-level character, where you could die in one hit and could only use your cool ability once a day, so we decided to change it."
Statement B: "It is no fun being a low-level character, where you could die in one hit and can only use your cool ability once a day, so we had to change it."
Statement C: "I remember playing my 1st level character, where I could die in one hit and I could only use my cool ability once a day, and it was no fun, so I wanted to change it."
The same basic information is being conveyed in each statement, but each gives a very different context for the information.
A presents survey data as a justification for changes.
B presents absolute truth as a justification for changes.
C presents personal experience as a justification for changes.
Even though most people realize A had a lot to do with the changes being made, they FEEL like the 4th Ed game is presented as mostly B-type statements, and in that light they take examples the designers use of their own campaigns as C-type statements that "are just their opinion."
WotC chose to use B-type language for much of their marketing campaign for 4th Ed, and a lot of people were turned off by that approach, to the point where they want nothing to do with it.
Getting offended that he considers 4E an improvement over 3rd Edition is just petty. Bringing that sort of attitude into this forum is just trolling. You can feel free to prefer 3.5 - stopping by to say that it is 'insulting' for the designers of 4E to prefer their game, however, is nonsense.
I don't think anyone said anything of the sort. In fact, quite the opposite. Certainly I've always maintained that the 4th Ed designers are SUPPOSED TO love the game they just spent the previous 2 years designing and most of another year since release working on. Heaven forbid that they don't!
The insulting part, as referenced previously, was the pattern of repeated statements of the designers to the extent that "you are gonna love 4th Ed because (A) it is the FUN way to play, inasmuch as its fun-ness is constituted by the fact of (B) the previous version is NOT the fun way to play, and in fact if you think it is fun it's just because you don't realize that it's really not fun at all." (A) is great, and I don't think the most hardcore grognard would find fault. (B) is what a lot of people found insulting in the tone of MANY statements from WotC staffers during the run-up to 4th Ed launch - not the "our new game is gonna be GREAT" statements, but the "this game is GREAT because it proves that your game SUCKS" or the "this game is BETTER than that game, and the only reason you might disagree is because you don't know any better and we know better than you what fun is" statements.
All the conversational chaff on this thread is historiography, not history. The transition from 3rd to 4th is inextricably tied to the marketing associated with it, and I have a number of friends who are current and former Wizards employees who smacked their heads repeatedly with dismay at the handling of the promotion of the new edition.
Ironically, perhaps it points to the strength of the new system's design or to the market research done ahead of time to tailor it to a new, different, or expanded customer base that the new edition has done as well as it has, considering those marketing missteps.
Especially given he even makes a point in talking about how some people won't prefer these changes. He specifically states that they made a deliberate move away from a really gritty, high-risk game, and that might be an issue for gamers that prefer that genre!
He does. I read the article, and I'm DMing a 4th Ed game and playing in a PF game.
I can't really think of any more books that I would have wanted for 3E anyhow that haven't been printed. If you want to run a 3E game you are pretty much set as far as material goes to run campaigns for the rest of your life. As a result, it didn't bother me at all when they announced a new edition would be released. I could give it a shot, and if I liked it better than 3E then great, and if not- well I have enough 3E books to keep me busy for the next 50 years, so it wouldn't be any real loss that the support for that system had ended. Now I have two cool dnd games to choose from. I like both systems, but for me none of them are perfect. There are things I like about 3E over 4E, and things I like about 4E over 3E. Right now I'm giving 4E a shot, and so far I think I like 4E a little better. My only real beef with 4E is that I don't fully like how they've done mages, and that some of the monsters have been a little too simplified (see liches and demons as prime examples). Other than that there isn't much about it that I dislike and lots of things I like better (plus its easy enough to add some complexity to a few of the monsters).
In the long run, it will always be the group of players you have and the quality of the dm that has the biggest impact on the fun of the game.
One note: I've been running a 4E game for about 6 months, and I've found that in terms of deadliness to PCs that it keeps up with 3E fairly well (we've had 6 fatalities in our campaign since it began in September and dozens of very close calls).
"4th Edition is like WoW" has been done to death, and was never a valid criticism in the first place.Sure it is. Its the reason I play 4th edition. Me and my friends who play WoW gravitated to the system because of our WoW experience.
That's good to hear! I have a few players who probably would not be at the game table if not for WoW (and I have a couple 80s myself). I never said it wasn't a valid comparison, though. It's just not a valid criticism.
There are a lot of things in D&D that are in WoW, and there are a lot of things in WoW that are in D&D. That doesn't make either game less awesome. Arguments against D&D need to be made on their own merits. "It's too much like X game!" isn't a worthwhile criticism because it doesn't actually identify your problem with the game - it just blames another game instead.
Hahaha, oh wow.MY TURN.
I don't care about you.
Also, this board needs to be shut down.
Let me elaborate: I don't care what you do in your game. You enjoy 4e, I enjoy 3e.
My ending statement? This thread has a potentiality to become a major flame war. If flame is what you want, go to EnWorld. 4e vs 3.whatever has been debated for over a year.
It's over man. Stop beating a dead horse. The verdict? Everyone wins, because everyone is happy with the game they are playing.
Apologies, you said that the board needs to be shut down. It looked like you were implying that the entire 4th Edition board was bad and needed to go away. If you mean just this thread, I'm not really inclined to disagree with you.
There's the million-dollar question, isn't it? Whether in fact the new system did it better.
I think the part that people have found demeaning is the couching of the changes made to 4th Ed in language that suggests they are inarguably "improvements" as opposed to "changes."
Sure, I would absolutely expect the folks working on the new edition to think it's cool; I'd be disappointed if they didn't. The point that rankles is that it was frequently stated in fairly explicit terms that "4th Edition rox and 3rd Edition sux."
"Third Edition D&D is a good game; in fact, it's so good that some of its problems are easy to miss for long-term players—they're just part of how the game works," doesn't sound like "3rd Edition sux." It sounds like "3rd Edition was good, and 4th Edition was better." I don't think any company should have to tread lightly around their own product in the way you're suggesting. If they're making a new edition, they should be able to say, without fear of derision from an entitled fan community for not simply referring to it as "change," that their new edition is an improvement over the old one. If you choose to get offended by someone saying that they're improving their own product, you probably need to take this hobby a little less seriously, whether or not you agree that it's an improvement.
Comparisons made to playing 3rd Edition being like fingernails on a chalkboard or comparable in fun value to chewing a mouthful of broken glass made by WotC staffers on the WotC website (I recall one dealing with swarms and another about high-level play) were taken as demeaning to people who liked 3rd Ed and its design goals and didn't appreciate being cast as ignorant for not agreeing with the absolute valuation of "improvements" to the game and their necessity because of the putative "obvious flaws" in the older version.
I liked 3rd Edition and its design goals. I didn't get offended when the designers told me that there were problems with their own game.
The designers clearly have opinions on how the game should work. Believe it or not, they had opinions on how the game should work back when they released 3rd Edition, and then 3.5. At every step of the way, they believed they were improving flaws within the game. At every step of the way, people who didn't think they were flaws became outraged that someone could ever question the appropriateness of Mechanic X. And at every step of the way, most people shrugged, figured they'd give it a shot, and generally ended up enjoying the new game. What you're seeing now is no different from how any new edition of a game works. I mean, really, what kind of a company would they be if their strategy for discussing their new edition went something like, "Do we think it's an improvement on the old edition? Nah, probably not. It changes a lot of stuff, but there's not really any part of it that I could say is better." No one would buy that product, and the developers would be lying anyway. And yet this is essentially what you're criticizing them for not doing.
You know what really bothers me here? The fact that the interview actually used some of the most reasonable language I've seen concerning the difference between 3.5 and 4E. I get the sense that the vast majority of people debating in this thread haven't even bothered to read it - are just attacking based on the same issues that have come up time and time again before. And I'll admit - WotC have had some posts where they did seem a bit over-the-top in attacking 3rd Edition. Guess what? That ain't the case here.
Rob Heinsoo goes out of his way to talk about how exceptional 3rd Edition was, and the fact that the problems might not even be an issue for many campaigns and many gamers. Yes, he calls them problems - because he genuinely views them as such, and even designed an entire new edition of the game to solve them. It would literally be impossible to try and honestly discuss the changes made to the game without addressing the reasons for those changes. Some folks disagree with those reasons, and thats fine, but there is not a single reason to consider them an insult.
Getting offended that he considers 4E an improvement over 3rd Edition is just petty. Bringing that sort of attitude into this forum is just trolling. You can feel free to prefer 3.5 - stopping by to say that it is 'insulting' for the designers of 4E to prefer their game, however, is nonsense.
Especially given he even makes a point in talking about how some people won't prefer these changes. He specifically states that they made a deliberate move away from a really gritty, high-risk game, and that might be an issue for gamers that prefer that genre!
I'm just quoting this because everyone needs to read it again.
I agree with this nitpick.
In terms of resource management, there's still a ton of it in 4th Edition. The difference is that in D&D 3.5, resource management was almost entirely a daily thing. Most limited-use abilities had a per-day limit. There was also a barebones turn-based resource management system (in that each character has to manage a move and standard action). 4th Edition expands the resource management system immensely. Now every class has elements that use a daily-level management system: healing surges, magic item uses, daily powers. There is also a milestone-level management system: action points and magic item uses. There is also an encounter-level management system: encounter powers and action points. There's even a stronger round-level management system: standard, move, immediate and minor actions and leader healing powers.
delabarre's criticism of "I'm sorry you didn't enjoy playing D&D," rings pretty hollow when it's clear that Rob did enjoy playing D&D, but was able to identify some weak areas within the game.
True up to the point, but phrasing sometimes matters a great deal in the meaning-making process. I'm not up in arms about anything that Heinsoo says in the article, but I'm a pretty laid back kinda guy. It is certainly possible to talk about changes made in a more diplomatic way. Some choose not to, thinking that is unnecessary double-talk. Compare, for instance:
Statement A: "Many gamers we talked to said it wasn't very much fun being a low-level character, where you could die in one hit and could only use your cool ability once a day, so we decided to change it."
Statement B: "It is no fun being a low-level character, where you could die in one hit and can only use your cool ability once a day, so we had to change it."
Statement C: "I remember playing my 1st level character, where I could die in one hit and I could only use my cool ability once a day, and it was no fun, so I wanted to change it."
The same basic information is being conveyed in each statement, but each gives a very different context for the information.
A presents survey data as a justification for changes.
B presents absolute truth as a justification for changes.
C presents personal experience as a justification for changes.Even though most people realize A had a lot to do with the changes being made, they FEEL like the 4th Ed game is presented as mostly B-type statements, and in that light they take examples the designers use of their own campaigns as C-type statements that "are just their opinion."
WotC chose to use B-type language for much of their marketing campaign for 4th Ed, and a lot of people were turned off by that approach, to the point where they want nothing to do with it.
I don't understand why people would be "turned off" by having the designer of a game essentially say "The new game is better." It's obvious that there are plenty of people out there who don't care that these things are presented as "absolute truth" and are perfectly content to try the game out honestly. I have to imagine that there's something else about this crowd of gamers who is offended by having the person who designed the game talk about how it improves over the previous incarnation of the same game that would cause them to get offended in such a manner - blaming it on the marketing strategy is, I think, just scratching the surface. In short, why would you care?
|
|
I don't understand why people would be "turned off" by having the designer of a game essentially say "The new game is better." It's obvious that there are plenty of people out there who don't care that these things are presented as "absolute truth" and are perfectly content to try the game out...Statement B: "It is no fun being a low-level character, where you could die in one hit and can only use your cool ability once a day, so we had to change it."
B presents absolute truth as a justification for changes.
WotC chose to use B-type language for much of their marketing campaign for 4th Ed, and a lot of people were turned off by that approach, to the point where they want nothing to do with it.
Now I see your only intent here is to keep an argument going, as several of us have explained that we have absolutely no problem with the designer saying thier new game is better. In fact if you read the replies you will see that two of us explicitly said we thought that would be fine. The fact that you ignored our post and jumped again on the same incorrect assumption shows that this is going nowhere. Thanks for the discussion all, I'll bow out here.
I don't understand why people would be "turned off" by having the designer of a game essentially say "The new game is better." It's obvious that there are plenty of people out there who don't care that these things are presented as "absolute truth" and are perfectly content to try the game out honestly. I have to imagine that there's something else about this crowd of gamers who is offended by having the person who designed the game talk about how it improves over the previous incarnation of the same game that would cause them to get offended in such a manner - blaming it on the marketing strategy is, I think, just scratching the surface. In short, why would you care?
So why would you care if some of us are turned off by WotC's statements.
Personally, I find them patronizing.
Now I see your only intent here is to keep an argument going, as several of us have explained that we have absolutely no problem with the designer saying thier new game is better. In fact if you read the replies you will see that two of us explicitly said we thought that would be fine. The fact that you ignored our post and jumped again on the same incorrect assumption shows that this is going nowhere. Thanks for the discussion all, I'll bow out here.I don't understand why people would be "turned off" by having the designer of a game essentially say "The new game is better." It's obvious that there are plenty of people out there who don't care that these things are presented as "absolute truth" and are perfectly content to try the game out...Statement B: "It is no fun being a low-level character, where you could die in one hit and can only use your cool ability once a day, so we had to change it."
B presents absolute truth as a justification for changes.
WotC chose to use B-type language for much of their marketing campaign for 4th Ed, and a lot of people were turned off by that approach, to the point where they want nothing to do with it.
From an earlier post of yours, noretec:
But now that they have to sell the new system we hear about how all the fun we were having was missing some important parts. That to me is insulting. They are telling me I was not smart enough to know what I was missing out on, but they are going to show me. That is the wrong way to market something to me. Tell me "We made this new game that we feel is better than the old version" I may not agree but I will respect that. Don't tell me "We did such a good job on the last game, you don't even know what is wrong with it, we'll fix it and you can play the new one and be happy we took care of that for you"
Maybe you can explain to me exactly how a company would improve a product that didn't have elements to it that were lacking? No one told you that you weren't smart enough. No one implied that. In fact, Heinsoo explicitly said that not everyone would agree that the things he identifies as problems are actually problems.
I didn't ignore your post, you still have failed to answer for your sense of personal insult. The fact that you've chosen to get insulted by a game designer saying that they have identified parts of the game that were poor and fixed them (and no matter how you choose to re-word this, that is the only sentiment Rob Heinsoo is expressing) shows me and others here precisely what your intent here is. Heck, you've already made it clear that the only reason you even think Heinsoo's interview was demeaning is because you disagree with the design choices he made. I doubt very much that you were ever interested in anything from this thread than the chance to express your dislike of 4th Edition, and that the interview served as little more than an excuse to do just that. If that's the case, I hear there's a great board elsewhere on this forum that deals with a game you probably enjoy much better.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
"Third Edition D&D is a good game; in fact, it's so good that some of its problems are easy to miss for long-term players—they're just part of how the game works," doesn't sound like "3rd Edition sux." It sounds like "3rd Edition was good, and 4th Edition was better."There's the million-dollar question, isn't it? Whether in fact the new system did it better.
I think the part that people have found demeaning is the couching of the changes made to 4th Ed in language that suggests they are inarguably "improvements" as opposed to "changes."
Sure, I would absolutely expect the folks working on the new edition to think it's cool; I'd be disappointed if they didn't. The point that rankles is that it was frequently stated in fairly explicit terms that "4th Edition rox and 3rd Edition sux."
Sure, and as already stipulated, it was not Heinsoo's interview here wherein those statements were made. His phraseology was much more conciliatory than others have been.
I don't think any company should have to tread lightly around their own product in the way you're suggesting. If they're making a new edition, they should be able to say, without fear of derision from an entitled fan community for not simply referring to it as "change," that their new edition is an improvement over the old one.
Oh, they're under no obligation to do anything. Mel Gibson was under no obligation to tell any story about the crucifixion other than the one he wanted to tell, but that didn't prevent people from getting mad at him for making the movie that he did. He knew the risks of blowback and elected to take them. It turned out to be a financial bonanza for him, whatever the controversy.
The designers of 4th Ed did the same. They had no obligation to be mealy-mouthed, diplomatic, or any other version of "carefully choosing their words," and they weren't. They knew the potential risks and decided to take them. It likewise seems to have turned out well financially. This doesn't make them or their critics right or wrong. It means they made a choice and they get the good and the bad consequences that come along with it.
If you choose to get offended by someone saying that they're improving their own product, you probably need to take this hobby a little less seriously, whether or not you agree that it's an improvement.
This is an example of the kind of phrasing from you that seems to rankle a number of folks - the imputation of taking the game too seriously, or choosing to be offended. People are offended or they aren't. It's not really a choice to make. They can choose to get over it or not, but that doesn't really apply to the initial sense of offense.
Comparisons made to playing 3rd Edition being like fingernails on a chalkboard or comparable in fun value to chewing a mouthful of broken glass made by WotC staffers on the WotC website (I recall one dealing with swarms and another about high-level play) were taken as demeaning to people who liked 3rd Ed and its design goals and didn't appreciate being cast as ignorant for not agreeing with the absolute valuation of "improvements" to the game and their necessity because of the putative "obvious flaws" in the older version.I liked 3rd Edition and its design goals. I didn't get offended when the designers told me that there were problems...
Nor I. But whether you or I got offended doesn't change the fact that other people WERE, and that neither you nor I are entitled to dismiss their offense as invalid just because we do not happen to share it. Compare, for instance, the controversy over the naming of sports team mascots after Native American/First Peoples/Indian/etc. tribes.
Anyhoo, you evidently don't agree that the 4th Ed designers and promoters put a foot wrong with anyone in the way they promoted the game and talked about the previous version. That's fine. Other rational people disagree.
This is an example of the kind of phrasing from you that seems to rankle a number of folks - the imputation of taking the game too seriously, or choosing to be offended. People are offended or they aren't. It's not really a choice to make. They can choose to get over it or not, but that doesn't really apply to the initial sense of offense.
There is a mindset required to be offended by something in the first place. Offense requires fertile ground within the mind of the offended, and that is something that you can choose to provide or not provide. There is such a thing as looking to be offended, whether you choose to believe it or not.
Anyhoo, you evidently don't agree that the 4th Ed designers and promoters put a foot wrong with anyone in the way they promoted the game and talked about the previous version. That's fine. Other rational people disagree.
And now we're discussing our disagreement. I think we've done plenty of making this about the meta argument, don't you?
Scott you need to get over it. Some people don't like 4.0. Myself included. I will not play it because I think it steps very far away from a true role-playing game. Just my opinion...by the way something that will not change.
Bandit of LV
Scott you need to get over it. Some people don't like 4.0. Myself included. I will not play it because I think it steps very far away from a true role-playing game. Just my opinion...by the way something that will not change.
Bandit of LV
That's nice. Enjoy your game!
|
|
Arrrrrggggghhhh,
Scott PLEASE stop pressing the "reply" button! How about you hit the "add post" button and tell us something you think rather than what you think about other peoples opinions.
I came to the 4E thread originally to find out more about 4E. My experience with 4E has been this so far.
My gaming group of 4 years all buy 4E books, we read them and then 4 out of 5 say its not their kind of game any more. I say as DM that I want to try it out. I get 3 other players to add to the 1 remaining. We play 3 sessions and 2 of the new three who were new to D&D not RPG's in general (Vampire mainly) say they don't think they like the game.
Why am I in these boards then you may ask? Trying to find out if I'm missing something of course. I read the rules again and again trying to find the spark that others see, to me its still an alien landscape with few familiar landmarks. What do I seem to get when I express my concerns... "Sorry you are wrong 4E is great <full stop>"
4E doesn't need defending against those nasty early edition likers, 4E has done NOTHING wrong!
Huge apologies for being WAY off topic.
Arrrrrggggghhhh,
Scott PLEASE stop pressing the "reply" button! How about you hit the "add post" button and tell us something you think rather than what you think about other peoples opinions.
Stefan Hill, if I did hit the "Add Post" button and told you what I think, it would STILL be what I think about other peoples' opinions because the topic of this thread is Rob Heinsoo's interview, which is (surprise!) made up almost entirely of another person's opinions! Regardless, I've already explained what I think of Heinsoo's interview through the discussion in this thread.
Please stop trying to drag this thread off course with personal jabs.
|
|
Once again the Scott whips out with an "opportunity attack" (that is the right term in 4E right?), in response to others thoughts. This time however Stefan Hill has no more hp's* and slides to the floor defeated. Beaten and whimpering "4E it's the best, the best I tell you, please no more, no more..."
Off to find a 4E thread that will actually help me to play the game. Luck to all.
S.
*Note that getting to this point would have been faster under the older editions in that the Scott could have forced me to save or die.
Once again the Scott whips out with an "opportunity attack" (that is the right term in 4E right?), in response to others thoughts. This time however Stefan Hill has no more hp's* and slides to the floor defeated. Beaten and whimpering "4E it's the best, the best I tell you, please no more, no more..."
Off to find a 4E thread that will actually help me to play the game. Luck to all.
S.
*Note that getting to this point would have been faster under the older editions in that the Scott could have forced me to save or die.
Now THAT is entertainment! Haha.
DnD. Massive game. Play how you want. Don't like the rules change 'em. Sheesh, we've all been doing it for years anyway.
Scott, if I ever have to go to court, I want you defending me!
I read the article. Thought is was interesting.
Scott, if I ever have to go to court, I want you defending me!
It's why I'm studying law.
I don't understand why people would be "turned off" by having the designer of a game essentially say "The new game is better."
You may be studying law, but you don't have any comprehension of marketing. So let me see if I can explain it to you - out of context of D&D, so as to prevent you from activating you Crusader Powers.
Let us pretend I have made an MMO. I have taken my experience in other MMO's to fix every flaw I found in the MMO's. I like my game. I think it r0xx0rs. I think it beats EQ(II) and WOW hands down.
[Which is understandable. It really sucks working at a job you don't have a passion for...]
Now, I want to get as many customers as I can. I want to present my changes in such a fashion that EQ(II) and WOW players will want to give it a try. Hell, even if they don't want to give it a try, I want them to be able to tell people they know about the changes in a positive fashion so maybe they will give it a try.
A marketing slogan like "I wouldn't wipe my bottom with WOW's manual or piss on a EQ(II) server if it was on fire. But my game, my game is actually worth the money you've wasted on those broken and un-fun games. Really, you'll love it!" is not the best choice to accomplish my goal. All that will do is irritate potential customers.
Disclaimer: I haven't read the article that this thread links to, nor am I claiming any WotC employee said anything like the above example. However, at first there were comments that came close enough to irritate me as someone who enjoys 3.X.
I would do a lot better if I found a more neutral way of presenting my game. Even something as simple as "I've done X, which I think you will find much better than how any other MMO has done it in the past."
And if that still doesn't explain it well enough for you, consider the difference between the following two comments:
A) I'm sending you to the store to by milk for me.
and
B) Could you do me a favor, and go to the store and buy some milk for me?
Which do you think is more likely to offend someone? Yes, even if you wouldn't be offended by either one.
I would do a lot better if I found a more neutral way of presenting my game. Even something as simple as "I've done X, which I think you will find much better than how any other MMO has done it in the past."
Which is, unless I'm very much mistaken, precisely how Wizards has handled it. To boot, it's not like they're trashing on their competitors' products. They're not little corporate brats saying "Our products are so much better than their products!" They took a game that they designed, and after having received nearly a decade of feedback (not to mention their own substantial play experiences) developed a game that made improvements where the older editions were lacking. WotC hasn't acted unconscionably haughty. They haven't stated (or even implied!) that you are somehow less intelligent than they are for not considering the same elements of the game as shortcomings. They have simply said that they made some changes that they think are for the better, listed their reasons why these changes are for the better, and even thought to mention that some people will disagree with them and that's fine too.
I can understand you disagreeing with the game's designers when they share their take on the game's evolution. That's nothing to fret over. But irritating you? Finding it offensive? These are reactions people normally have to personal insult, and that has not taken place here. The worst that WotC has actually been accused of doing is saying, "This element of our game was flawed, we fixed it and now it's better," which some people have stretched beyond recognition to read, "This element of our game was flawed, and any of you who didn't notice it the first time around are idiots."
Imagine if WotC's designer acted like some people in this thread have acted. Every time they received feedback from someone along the lines of "This part of your game sucks," (which, by the way, a number of the people participating in this thread have actually done on this very forum in the past, with far less in the way of constructive comment than WotC has provided), a WotC operating under the mentality described above would be furious, personally offended that someone would dare share their take on the game like it was true. Even worse, in my example WotC is reacting to someone else criticizing their game, where in real life WotC is actually criticizing their own game and people are still reacting very poorly to it.
I don't think anyone here would have a problem taking WotC to task if they acted like that, but when an entitled fan acts in the same way, a bundle of other community members hop on board ready to back that fan's (often comically) indignant outrage up.
Disenchanter, in the future please avoid injecting quite so much condescension into your posts.
Is Stefan Hill bloodied?
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
I'd guess the 4th Edition marketing had to walk a tightrope - sell a radical departure from previous design goals without alienating oldtime hardcore fans (a dependable, yet fickle group) while selling to people who were at best indifferent to the old system at the same time.
I think they could have done a better job - they caught much flak for smug overtones and an irreverent approach. If the points they scored with other demographics made up for this, I do not know. However, the mere fact that the "edition wars" still go on, over a year after their start shows that they didn't manage as smooth a transition as they hoped.
Several other factors (GSL, I'm looking at you...) probably didn't help here, either.
My nitpicks:
I'm really shocked by how much the game was shaped by his personal negative experiences in 3E.
It wasn't limited to Rob's experience. Near the tail end of 3E, message boards were stuffed with threads complaining about how useless fighters, bards, monks, gnomes, ect. were, and how broken wizards, clerics, and druids were. After the Tome of Battle came out, the consensus was that the core martial classes were obsolete.
It's particulary ironic that he was unhappy in his character's combat role (tank), considering that 4E goes much further in stuffing classes into specific combat roles, and the fighter is still a tank.
His complaint wasn't about his role. His complaint, and he isn't alone, is that other classes performed the role better.
I dunno, I guess our party is doing it wrong, because our fighters kick ass right alongside the wizards, and ofttimes it's the squishy casters that are afraid to proceed without their hardshell protectors.
Just because your experience is different, that doesn't make his or anyone else's invalid. The bottom line is that enough people had and, more importantly, spoke up about the same negative experience that the 4E designers made it a point to "fix" the perceived problem. If you disagree, no one is stopping you from enjoying your prefered edition of the game. In fact, I hear that right here on this very web site there is a place to discuss a new and improved edition of 3E!
Why am I in these boards then you may ask? Trying to find out if I'm missing something of course. I read the rules again and again trying to find the spark that others see, to me its still an alien landscape with few familiar landmarks. What do I seem to get when I express my concerns... "Sorry you are wrong 4E is great <full stop>"
What are your specific issues? If you post them i'll try and answer them as well as I can. I've been playing 4e since it was released (as DM and player) as our weekly Ptolus campiagn ended a few weeks after 4e release.
I'm no edition soldier so i'll try and keep any of that out of it, but I really Am having a good time with 4e at the moment. I also had a really good time playing 2e, 3.5, vampire and while ive not played it yet i'll think have a really good time playing Pathfinder (if I ever get the chance, and I hope i do). I've always found its the story you tell, not the rules you use that make a great RPG,. It just so happens that the rules we are using at the moment are 4e.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
4E doesn't need defending against those nasty early edition likers, 4E has done NOTHING wrong!
<Britney defender>LEAVE 4E alone!!!!!!!!</Britney defender> :0)
Seriously. the OGL system is what I use. 4e isn't my system, HARN isn't my system, GURPS isn't my system. Paladium I can play after I spend 2 days building a character, 2 more days trying to find all the little 'clarifications' and another week cursing Kevin Sembiada for NOT JUST RELEASING A REVISED EDITION ALREADY! *pant pant pant*
My beef with 4e, isn't the mechanics, they just don't interest me. My beef is WotC's hodgepodge nuking of the Realms, their butchering of the lore that has been put together over the 30+ years of the game, and then explaining it as being 'needed'. The original GSL was jsut icing on the cake.
I'll have to check the interview when I get home.
Disenchanter, in the future please avoid injecting quite so much condescension into your posts.
And that is why you can't understand.
You are too busy projecting your own expectations on others posts (you know the saying right? People see in others what they know to be in themselves.), or passive aggressively making personal attacks, to spend any energy in understanding.
But, then again, if you think I have injected condescension into my posts... Then you have finally understood how people could find fault with how WotC handled their marketing.
The only thing is, if you think I injected condescension, why is it you can't see that from WotC?
Why am I in these boards then you may ask? Trying to find out if I'm missing something of course. I read the rules again and again trying to find the spark that others see, to me its still an alien landscape with few familiar landmarks. What do I seem to get when I express my concerns... "Sorry you are wrong 4E is great <full stop>"
What are your specific issues? If you post them i'll try and answer them as well as I can. I've been playing 4e since it was released (as DM and player) as our weekly Ptolus campiagn ended a few weeks after 4e release.
I'm no edition soldier so i'll try and keep any of that out of it, but I really Am having a good time with 4e at the moment. I also had a really good time playing 2e, 3.5, vampire and while ive not played it yet i'll think have a really good time playing Pathfinder (if I ever get the chance, and I hope i do). I've always found its the story you tell, not the rules you use that make a great RPG,. It just so happens that the rules we are using at the moment are 4e.
Personally, I appreciate your offer Ratchet. I won't take you up on it myself, but I can tell you that you won't get that many who do. There are still too many p4l4dins, or c4rdin4ls, that take the mention of a dislike of 4th Edition as a perfect time to convert the infidels.
And just so no one here lets that inflate their egos, I'm talking about in the real world too. I had a friend simply mention that he didn't like 4th Edition and would never use it. He then had to suffer an hour long sermon about how he was being unfair and a "h4ter" by not even giving it a fair try.
That was about a month ago.
The holy crusades still continue. In one form or another. It will still be years before the resistance cells (on both sides) dwindle enough to have a truly enlightening conversation in public. If you don't believe me, just go to your FLGS and make a comment loud enough to be heard of "4th Edition is too much like WOW," or "4th Edition fixed everything that was broken by 3rd," and watch the preachers of their respective editions decend upon the non-believer.
I'm not saying that people are deliberately making attacks to try and drag this forum down (though there are, honestly, a few that fall into that category.) It seems like most of the problem is that many different folks wander in here to say their piece, and it is the same exact arguments that have been presented (and disproven) countless times before, and that manages to set the entire place aflame again. And it is tiresome, and frustrating, and I don't blame Scott for deciding the only way to respond is to keep repeating himself - as civilly as he can - in the hope that eventually people will stop bringing up the same attacks that don't belong in this forum in the first place.
As usual, Matthew is able to cut to the heart of the matter better than I am.
But this thread is not about an advertisement. It is not about marketing. It is about an article that is specifically addressing the changes between 3rd Edition and 4E. It is simply not possible to address those changes without also presenting the opinion that the new changes are (in the designer's view) an improvement, and were done in response to what he considered problems in the previous edition.
The article... it's still marketing. Spotlight interviews, about products, are marketing. You aren't going to separate some forms of speech out, particularly not when the article is released to coincide with the release the latest rulebook offering. They're highlighting differences between the previous product and current one with the intention of winning over people to buy the new product. This is still part of a coordinated campaign to sell people on 4e. So I don't exactly see why discussions of other marketing should be off the table.
Seriously. ENWorld managed to get the edition war under control. The WotC forums managed to do so, and they are reknowned for being an online hive of scum and villainy! The fact that the Paizo forums, of all places, have become the low spot of the RPG crowd is not a good thing, and one I'm really hoping won't continue to be the case.
Then I'd say you're not really paying close enough attention to the ENWorld general forum. Discussion has branched out into other topics again, but there's still plenty of edition warring going on.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Disenchanter, in the future please avoid injecting quite so much condescension into your posts.And that is why you can't understand.
You are too busy projecting your own expectations on others posts (you know the saying right? People see in others what they know to be in themselves.), or passive aggressively making personal attacks, to spend any energy in understanding.
But, then again, if you think I have injected condescension into my posts... Then you have finally understood how people could find fault with how WotC handled their marketing.
The only thing is, if you think I injected condescension, why is it you can't see that from WotC?
Nail. Head.
Inference or implication? The world may never know, but it's odd to see implication in one place and not in another.
If Rob's approach in this article had been the WotC interview/promo policy a year ago, things might be different now. His more positive stance might have appealed to a lot more folks than did the different tack WotC took, but he has the unkind fate to have to work back uphill after the fact, and have his comments read in a more negative light because he's under the shadow of the more negative comments others in the company have made in the past casting a poor reflection on him still. If I thought there was any point to it, I would go back and research and point out specific examples of WotC staffers making postings, articles, and statements that were explicitly negative, but I'll leave that kind of crusading to the folks that "take the game too seriously."
As for me, here's hoping Rob's stance is more representative of future conversation, to the extent such conversation even occurs. After all, it will become progressively less of a relevant concern as the 3rd Ed and its adherents fade into WotC's rear-view mirror. Few will be asking the question of "why did you change XYZ" anymore.
I'm running a 4th Ed game now; characters just made 5th level.
I'm playing in a PF game; we just made 4th level.
Either way, I'm back to the game. (well, actually, back to WORK, but game prep later!)
|
|
Near the tail end of 3E, message boards were stuffed with threads complaining about how useless fighters, bards, monks, gnomes, ect. were, and how broken wizards, clerics, and druids were. After the Tome of Battle came out, the consensus was that the core martial classes were obsolete.
<snip>
Just because your experience is different, that doesn't make his or anyone else's invalid. The bottom line is that enough people had and, more importantly, spoke up about the same negative experience that the 4E designers made it a point to "fix" the perceived problem.
I've read lots of these complaints here on the Paizo boards and on the WOTC boards, and they all have a common thread of cognitive dissonance to them, which is the expectation/demand that martial characters like fighters and barbarians be able to deal damage at the same rate as spellcasters using their nova powers.
Justin Alexander eviscerates this trope here.
Short answer: the perceived lapse is a consequence of the 15-minute adventuring day, which 4E makes even worse, by giving martial characters 1/day nova powers as well!
I've read lots of these complaints here on the Paizo boards and on the WOTC boards, and they all have a common thread of cognitive dissonance to them, which is the expectation/demand that martial characters like fighters and barbarians be able to deal damage at the same rate as spellcasters using their nova powers.Justin Alexander eviscerates this trope here.
Short answer: the perceived lapse is a consequence of the 15-minute adventuring day, which 4E makes even worse, by giving martial characters 1/day nova powers as well!
I'll concede to WotC and 4e that, by giving martial characters a set of 1/day nova powers, they at least removed the dissonance within the party between nova-going characters and steady reapers.
But I'm waiting to see how the different class roles burn through their healing surges and how that governs the short work day. Right now, I'm seeing the melee characters burn surges at a much higher rate than everybody else. That makes sense, sure. But I'm seeing a much greater difference in the rate at which they're used up than the difference in how many are distributed to character classes in the first place.
I think it might take the game back to the days of hit points and healing resources governing when a party rests, but less transferable healing also means that there are fewer ways to compensate for a few runs of bad luck on the front line.
The WotC forums managed to do so, and they are reknowned for being an online hive of scum and villainy!
I was pretty much going along with what you were saying until this.
My point of view: The edition wars on the WotC forums were not brought to their current state by the actions of moderators. They were stopped by the actions of the posters on the forums.
That is not a complement of those forum goers. I believe it is the result of posters launching attacks in mass toward people they disagree with driving the minority that continues to argue away.
If we were to apply the same thing here, it would be to suggest that we need more forum posters to argue and drive away 4th Edition players until the number of arguments is reduced.
That is not a viable option to me and it is stood out so much that it destroyed much of your argument for me.
-
However, I do find it odd how this thread got here, expanding beyond the original topic. My assumption has been that each side has been expanding the scope of their arguments to defeat the other sides arguments. I don't think either side is really innocent in keeping it on topic.
I don't get it, I just don't get it...
For thirty years, D&D has been a game where you role up a character WITH THE EXPECTATION that he may die through no fault of your own!
Was this aspect of the game an accident?
No, for if it were, surely Mr. Gygax would have changed things by the time first edition debuted...
I think its worth noting that we really are not (I don't think) comparing how Mr. Gygax played the game with how 4E plays the game in regard to the mechanic of save or die. 3.x changed the game enough in terms of monster abilities, spells and especially traps that the whole look and feel had already been altered. 1st edition was a problem solving game in this regards. You fought Medusa's with actual physical mirrors not an ability that let you close your eyes and still fight pretty well. You dealt with the trap laden Tomb of Horrors by having the wizard summon creatures who would interact with everything before you ever touched them yourself. Spells, in 1E where much more open ended, you used them in combo's and in innovative ways to get around the challenge.
In this aspect having to make a save or die roll was usually a 'second chance' shot at getting to live when you had already made a hash of things. Heck you were often lucky if you even got one. It was not so unusual to have the adventure read that if the character had messed up so badly as to get himself into situation X then he died, no save. That became far, far, less common as the themes of the game shifted through late 1st and on into 2nd. By 3rd the emphasis had switched enough that saving throws were no longer some kind of 'second chance' roll at all. They had become fairly common and no one really expected players to think their way around ever having to make them.
Hence I don't think the question is really whether Mr. Gygax was wrong or right in this mechanic for later editions of the game. He was right for 1st edition because of the deliberate, contemplative, problem solving style of play that that system encourages. What does a 1st edition character have in their bag of holding? The answer is 'everything', because you just never know when you might need a goat.
Hence 4E has to decide whether a mechanic is or is not good for its style of gaming and in a game were players don't usually overcome problems with 50' of rope, two buckets and a large stone with levitate cast on it instant death mechanics are not as good a solution as mechanics that add tension to situation at the table.
|
|
Hence 4E has to decide whether a mechanic is or is not good for its style of gaming and in a game were players don't usually overcome problems with 50' of rope, two buckets and a large stone with levitate cast on it instant death mechanics are not as good a solution as mechanics that add tension to situation at the table.
You forgot the Gum and Duct Tape...MacGyver...
I've read lots of these complaints here on the Paizo boards and on the WOTC boards, and they all have a common thread of cognitive dissonance to them, which is the expectation/demand that martial characters like fighters and barbarians be able to deal damage at the same rate as spellcasters using their nova powers.Justin Alexander eviscerates this trope here.
He certainly makes an interesting point with the idea of pacing. To some extent I agree with him but I think he may be underestimating the players abilities in controlling the pacing earlier.
I also can't say I agree with his solution of making the adventure 'harder' if the players leave and come back. The problem with this solution is that its essentially a feedback loop. Once the players have left they are going to be even more likely to go Nova when they come back because they now have to since the adventure has gotten much more difficult. This feedback loop does not even really punish the players since they are just going to get more XP from all these extra monsters that they have to kill. So making things tougher really is not much of a solution. That said there are solutions, personally my favorite was to set it up so that most of the really good loot was with the BBEG at the end, if the players left after doing significant damage to the local then the BBEG would pack up and leave before they returned taking all the sweet luchre with it - this drives players crazy.
Short answer: the perceived lapse is a consequence of the 15-minute adventuring day, which 4E makes even worse, by giving martial characters 1/day nova powers as well!
I don't really find this for a number of reasons. First off players that leave are giving up power. They are resetting the milestone clock back to 0 and they are resetting their action points back to 1.
Finally the nova powers are just not that much better then the encounter powers. So what you get from leaving is just not all that great. In my 3.5 Castle Maure game the players teleport out once their top tier spells are used, after that staying is just begging for the DM to kill you as that adventure is nasty. In our 4E game we leave when one player has run out of healing surges.
The real difference is in the players calculations of how the odds are changing. Once the spell casters have run through their top tier spells, in 3.5, the fear of the adventure adapting to you is far less of a concern then continuing on into the unknown without access to your best magic. The party is a LOT weaker without these spells.
In 4E the calculation is often reversed. Your only a tad weaker without access to Dailies since you still have all your encounter powers and often have milestones and action points to compensate. If you leave and the adventure reacts to you then your probably playing at a disadvantage because your coming back only slightly stronger - you might even be coming back weaker if you had built up some kind of a pool of APs since an action point is usually more powerful then a daily.
Hence 4E has to decide whether a mechanic is or is not good for its style of gaming and in a game were players don't usually overcome problems with 50' of rope, two buckets and a large stone with levitate cast on it instant death mechanics are not as good a solution as mechanics that add tension to situation at the table.You forgot the Gum and Duct Tape...MacGyver...
We could never find gum and duct tape, but we'd have done even better if we had. That said there was always universal solvent and sovereign glue - part of any adventures essentials if you could find it.
I'll concede to WotC and 4e that, by giving martial characters a set of 1/day nova powers, they at least removed the dissonance within the party between nova-going characters and steady reapers.But I'm waiting to see how the different class roles burn through their healing surges and how that governs the short work day. Right now, I'm seeing the melee characters burn surges at a much higher rate than everybody else. That makes sense, sure. But I'm seeing a much greater difference in the rate at which they're used up than the difference in how many are distributed to character classes in the first place.
I think it might take the game back to the days of hit points and healing resources governing when a party rests, but less transferable healing also means that there are fewer ways to compensate for a few runs of bad luck on the front line.
I certainly agree that what stops the party is lack of healing surges and, in my experience, Defenders run out of surges first. This is especially problematic, in my party, with the Sword Mage who seems to have a little less staying power and is particularly good at getting himself into a pickle with his combat tricks. "check it out guys - I can go right through the enemy line to get to the artillery dude at the back!" ... Yes and then the entire enemy line will turn around and kick your ass.
|
|
I think the thing in that article that made me happiest was that there is an upcoming sequal to three dragon ante or 3DA as he took to calling it. I was seriously worried that the game didn't sell enough to warrant sequals especially when just playing I thought that the gem dragons from the MMII would make a perfect sequal. Anywho, that was my take of the article, happiness at learning that more 3da stuff was on the way.
|
|
Is Stefan Hill bloodied?
Thanks for your concern. I should be fine. Just read that if stand on one foot, whistle, and have somebody else jump from a roof that NOT ONLY do I do "2d4 +INT +CHA -WIS sarcasm damage" and cause aggressive posters to fall prone off their chairs, but I can spend a healing dirge (this post)!
:)