What turned me away from 4th Edition was the MMORPG vibe that I felt from it. I can't say if it's a bad system or not, since I've never ran it or played in an actual game with it. But after reading the DM and Player's Guides, the departure from the overall setting I knew and loved was too much for me. Of course, D&D's setting as changed from edition to edition (from AD&D 2nd to 3rd, for example), so that wasn't the sole reason. But I'm used to assimar, tieflings, the planes (Celestia, the Nine Hells, the Abyss), Castle Greyhawk, Bahamat (the good dragon diety, not the supreme good deity), the City of Brass, all of the creatures, locales, deities, magic items that give D&D its unique feel.
And that's the kicker: the game itself doesn't feel like D&D to me. I'm used to classes with abilities (Paladins with smite evil, immune to disease, turn undead; the staple stuff, even from AD&D 1st and 2nd editions), the HP tables, armor class. I didn't expect ability slots, like a pick and choose method at certain levels. Not a bad thing for character class diversity (after all, 3rd edition had feats), but the class abilities became slots as well, and that left me scratching my head.
4th edition doesn't seem like a bad game, but the way WOTC sells it disturbs me. Third developer support was what made the OGL such a great thing: if WOTC didn't publish the setting you wanted, chances are someone else did (like Ravenloft through White Wolf). And their new game license wasn't their first mistake. Yanking Dragon and Dungeon back from Paizo, revoking Sovereign Stone's request to renew the Dragonlance license, and the way they treated the Star Wars line under d20 prior to SAGA didn't impress me.
Star Wars SAGA is the sole line of products I buy from WOTC (the campaign guides have been awesome: they remind me of the WEG days). If it weren't for those, they wouldn't see a penny from me. WOTC may be the Market Leader, but Paizo is definitely the candidate for Industry Leader. And with the strong support and detail they give the Pathfinder line, I wouldn't be surprised if the third party publishers follow their lead.
What turned me away from 4th Edition was the MMORPG vibe that I felt from it.
Is this turning into another "Why I don't play 4E" thread? Then let me add my two cents. :-)
Usually I like reading through new games, but somehow reading through page after page of entries like:
- Name: Howling Wolf Tornado
- Damage: 2[W]+Str vs. Reflex
- Hit: Shift target one square
- Miss: Str damage
- Sustain: minor
...just makes me dizzy. I just don't get excited when 90% of all powers (and there are loads and loads of them!) seem like minor variations on the same theme.
What turned me away from 4th Edition was the MMORPG vibe that I felt from it.Is this turning into another "Why I don't play 4E" thread? Then let me add my two cents. :-)
I don't think that was the intent.
Many posters, myself included, have made the point that the mechanical changes to D&D are not really the core problem (reguardless of how you may feel about them). Hasbro/Wizards of the Coast's corporate behavior is.
It is quite possible to like D&D 4th Edition and still be disgusted by Hasbro's handling of the game's player base (... and mistreatment of 3rd Party Publishers).
It has more to do with the future of the Tabletop Role-Playing game as a hobby. (... given that WoTC seems to be doing their best to run D&D into the ground.)
I apologize if I got a little off-topic previously. I think it was the first time I commented on both 4th edition and what I think D&D's future would be, or the tabletop gaming industry's direction.
When TSR went bankrupt years ago, I think most gamers witnessed a shift in the direction of tabletop gaming. It seemed that the CCG craze (namely Magic) may have been a factor in that, but it was mostly because TSR was very deep in debt at that time (I don't have the figures on this one). TSR ended up being bought out by WOTC, and WOTC later became part of Hasbro Inc.
I don't think that 3rd Edition was a part of natural cycle of game development and sales, but more of an attempt to relaunch Dungeons and Dragons. 2nd Edition had been around for a long time, but TSR was in no shape to develop a new edition in the state it was in. 4th Edition did seem premature, but IMHO, it was an attempt by WOTC to cash in on younger gamers drawn to MMORPGs (hence the change of the overall style and format of the game) and keep in the older gamers who might want a shot at a different type of game mechanics (maybe ones who were disappointed in 3.0/3.5).
I'm not saying either edition (or the upcoming Pathfinder/3.75) is better than the other, just that WOTC's marketing practices seem to be alienating older gamers and shifting third party publishers toward a different game system.
I apologize if I got a little off-topic previously. I think it was the first time I commented on both 4th edition and what I think D&D's future would be, or the tabletop gaming industry's direction.
It wasn't just you. :)
What turned me away from 4th Edition was the MMORPG vibe that I felt from it.Is this turning into another "Why I don't play 4E" thread? Then let me add my two cents. :-)I don't think that was the intent.
Many posters, myself included, have made the point that the mechanical changes to D&D are not really the core problem (reguardless of how you may feel about them). Hasbro/Wizards of the Coast's corporate behavior is.
It is quite possible to like D&D 4th Edition and still be disgusted by Hasbro's handling of the game's player base (... and mistreatment of 3rd Party Publishers)
It has more to do with the future of the Tabletop Role-Playing game as a hobby. (... given that WoTC seems to be doing their best to run D&D into the ground.)
I think you spoke for me here. At least in part. I don't mind some of 4e game play, but I am no fan of WoTC(Hasbro) marketing or handling of the game.
The PHB was a perfect example, to me it seemed to left out races and classes on purpose to force long time players into buying the PHB II which once I bought it outside of the races and classes that should have been in PHB I felt like it was a waste or at best a splat book I was required to buy to have a complete core book.
The PDF thing boils my blood, their release of special powers in well game enhancements also drives me nuts.
For those claiming the game pays tribute to 1st ed and 2nd ed, well I don't see that at all. I played both, I've been playing since boxed sets and I see little to nothing in 4e that reminds me of previous editions outside of class and race names.
The game plays ok, lacks meat though, but to me the biggest flaw is the way WoTC has behaved and marketed it.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Well 4e isn't my cup of tea, but then again, neiter is WFRP or Rolemaster, so WotC putting out a game I didn't like wasn't a factor, I just figrued my new game stuff buying was over with.
What alienated WotC from me (and some of these, there's no going back, unfortunately)
How would I want to see D&D thrive in a post WotC world?
1) Put 4x on an OGL. While I don't like 4x, clearly some people do. it should be possible to open up the OGL to make it so you need the core 3 books, and can increase sales by allowing 3PP to use materials (My Green Ronin Advanced products were purchased as a direct result of the material used in the AP)
2) Release the 3.x and previous PDFs again for sale, and slowly add them to the OGL. Again, the feedback will benefit the sale of the products.
3) License and marketing. Take all the 'dead worlds' and license them. They'll thrive or die on the merits of the publishers, and the heir company profits, both from Licensing fees and from sales of products. Also the leaner and meaner companies can innovate, things the heir company can learn/steal.
4)??
5) Profit
|
3) License and marketing. Take all the 'dead worlds' and license them. They'll thrive or die on the merits of the publishers, and the heir company profits, both from Licensing fees and from sales of products. Also the leaner and meaner companies can innovate, things the heir company can learn/steal.
I don't know why they don't do this anyway. They've got so many popular campaign worlds that can't be developed to their fullest extent just because they don't have the time to work on all of them. Things like Greyhawk could still be money makers, albiet they may not make as much money as FR, but are still viable. Its like cutting off all of your other fingers becuase you mostly use your thumb and index fingers.
Well 4e isn't my cup of tea, but then again, neiter is WFRP or Rolemaster, so WotC putting out a game I didn't like wasn't a factor, I just figrued my new game stuff buying was over with.
What alienated WotC from me (and some of these, there's no going back, unfortunately)
Nuke the Realms! By timeline jumping and blowing up huge tracts of land (and history) they PTB wrecked the Realms for me. I don't want to play Gamma Realms, I want the world to advance at its own speed, not blown up for edition (and Realms haters) sake.
Hey hey hey! Don't go blaming us Realms haters for what happened to the setting. :-) I hate FR with a passion, and even I don't think what happened to it was right. A cataclysm is one thing, but they really worked that world over badly. That said, I agree with many of your points. I hate 4th ed even more than I hate the realms, but I realize that there are people who love it just as much as I don't, and wouldn't want to take it away from them. If, through some miracle unforeseen before or since, I were to become president of Hasbro or whoever makes the decisions on the WotC side of the fence, I wouldn't toss 4e under the bus. It would remain a viable option for gaming, though I would attempt to right some of their other wrongs(Dragon, Dungeon, the .pdf debacle, dropping the 3.x ball, etc.).
3) License and marketing. Take all the 'dead worlds' and license them. They'll thrive or die on the merits of the publishers, and the heir company profits, both from Licensing fees and from sales of products. Also the leaner and meaner companies can innovate, things the heir company can learn/steal.I don't know why they don't do this anyway. They've got so many popular campaign worlds that can't be developed to their fullest extent just because they don't have the time to work on all of them. Things like Greyhawk could still be money makers, albiet they may not make as much money as FR, but are still viable. Its like cutting off all of your other fingers becuase you mostly use your thumb and index fingers.
That is, in a nutshell, why I hate the Realms- because there was so much wasted potential in other settings that many ignored for the basic black that is Toril. I'm still a huge Dragonlance, Dark Sun, Spelljammer and Planescape fan.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
That is, in a nutshell, why I hate the Realms- because there was so much wasted potential in other settings that many ignored for the basic black that is Toril. I'm still a huge Dragonlance, Dark Sun, Spelljammer and Planescape fan.3) License and marketing. Take all the 'dead worlds' and license them. They'll thrive or die on the merits of the publishers, and the heir company profits, both from Licensing fees and from sales of products. Also the leaner and meaner companies can innovate, things the heir company can learn/steal.I don't know why they don't do this anyway. They've got so many popular campaign worlds that can't be developed to their fullest extent just because they don't have the time to work on all of them. Things like Greyhawk could still be money makers, albiet they may not make as much money as FR, but are still viable. Its like cutting off all of your other fingers becuase you mostly use your thumb and index fingers.
I understand. And I mean that from someone who liked the 'basic black' of the Realms. Look at what MWP did with Dragonlance, Test of the Twins was/is awesome. (Though I think the 3.x redo of the modules shows they're a bit long in the teeth.)
Many posters, myself included, have made the point that the mechanical changes to D&D are not really the core problem (reguardless of how you may feel about them). Hasbro/Wizards of the Coast's corporate behavior is.
Agreed.
I don't like 4e's mechanics. I'd play WoW before I played 4e (If I'm limiting myself like that, I might as well enjoy pretty graphics. And I promised myself never to get into the whole MMORPG thing). But other than they call it D&D, it isn't too much of a problem in of itself. After all, 3e isn't dead, I can still get my regular D&D fix elsewhere.
So for 4e, their behaviour doesn't make much of a difference in my case - I won't buy 4e either way.
But assuming they do 5e (and unless they shut down D&D, it's pretty much a given. And it's all accelerating, meaning 4e's lifespan will be shorter than 3e's), the attitude becomes a problem.
For unless they change their behaviour, I won't even look at 5e. Could be the best game in the world, surpassing 3e's strong points, 4e's strong points, and all other RPGs' and MMORPGs' strong points, and I won't buy.
And I think I'm not the only one with that attitude.
Hey hey hey! Don't go blaming us Realms haters for what happened to the setting. :-)
You're accomplices :P
But of course, the real culprit is wizards. Of course there are people who didn't like the Realms and complained about it. Always will. But you just don't fire your old customers to pander to new ones. At least not without making those old customers really angry and lose their patronage. Not just for the product you take form them, but for everything. Not all of them will act that way, but some will. Maybe too many.
For the record (since we're talking about losing customers): To all those who tried to taunt me with: "you're just b~!~~ing and whining, you'll be crawling back to D&D:" It's been - what? A year and a half? - and I haven't bought another D&D rulebook. Or another D&D miniature. Or another novel.
Wizards lost hundreds, if not thousands, of Euros from me alone. And a lot of that could have gone to wizards still (they sell more than 4e rulebooks and FR novels), if not for their attitude. I wonder if they consider it worth it.
Here's a question: If 4e doesn't make a much money as some suits expect/want, will that speed up 5e or put it wa-a-a-ay in the future?
3) License and marketing. Take all the 'dead worlds' and license them. They'll thrive or die on the merits of the publishers, and the heir company profits, both from Licensing fees and from sales of products. Also the leaner and meaner companies can innovate, things the heir company can learn/steal.I don't know why they don't do this anyway. They've got so many popular campaign worlds that can't be developed to their fullest extent just because they don't have the time to work on all of them. Things like Greyhawk could still be money makers, albiet they may not make as much money as FR, but are still viable. Its like cutting off all of your other fingers becuase you mostly use your thumb and index fingers.
Hell, since they're only doing 1 campaign setting a year, I'd be all in favor of them doing their 3 books and then licensing off the CS to someone that wants to give it its due depth. This is a win for everyone (but us 3.x/Pathfinder fans, but we're use to that by now).
|
|
Hell, since they're only doing 1 campaign setting a year, I'd be all in favor of them doing their 3 books and then licensing off the CS to someone that wants to give it its due depth. This is a win for everyone (but us 3.x/Pathfinder fans, but we're use to that by now).3) License and marketing. Take all the 'dead worlds' and license them. They'll thrive or die on the merits of the publishers, and the heir company profits, both from Licensing fees and from sales of products. Also the leaner and meaner companies can innovate, things the heir company can learn/steal.I don't know why they don't do this anyway. They've got so many popular campaign worlds that can't be developed to their fullest extent just because they don't have the time to work on all of them. Things like Greyhawk could still be money makers, albiet they may not make as much money as FR, but are still viable. Its like cutting off all of your other fingers becuase you mostly use your thumb and index fingers.
Yeah, apparently good marketing means preventing good ideas from escaping.
Here's a question: If 4e doesn't make a much money as some suits expect/want, will that speed up 5e or put it wa-a-a-ay in the future?
I'd lean toward speed up 5e.
Microsoft is demonstrating that with its Vista to Windows 7 move.
For the record (since we're talking about losing customers): To all those who tried to taunt me with: "you're just b!&~*ing and whining, you'll be crawling back to D&D:" It's been - what? A year and a half? - and I haven't bought another D&D rulebook. Or another D&D...
I haven't done a lot of griping about 4E. I pre-ordered the books, played a few sessions with my falling-apart group using the preview materials, and then I cancelled my pre-order. Probably didn't give it enough of a chance but...oh well. Because of this I guess Wizards has lost a pretty constant source of revenue. I have most of the 3.5 and Eberron setting books.
I seriously doubt I'd ever buy more than the core 4E books even if I got talked into playing it. We'll see what 5E brings. I also doubt I'd be interested in a 4E-based modern, since I don't much like the new play style and have no faith in continued support if they did intro it. I have all of the Modern books.
I do continue to buy the Saga books, for now. They're pretty good...even if the editing quality is crappy. Pretty soon, though, I might run out of compelling reasons to get them. I buy SW minis and D&D minis, though fewer of those now that I'm playing it less.
I *would* buy some more old-edition PDFs but can't anymore. So. To keep me giving them money they need to keep doing a good job on Saga, minis, and bring back PDFs (at least the oop stuff).
M
4E-Modern would be *awesome*. <drools>
That being said I didn't have anything to do with 4E until I glanced though the PHB at the local bookstore at which point I was hooked like a trout. I think 4E has enough merits to stand on its own without Wizards of the Coast and even if they dumped the D&D brand (unlikely) or licensed it out (unlikely) I would pretty much stop playing it if it didn't remain in the 4E system, especially if it went backwards to 3.x <shudders> which ironically is why I quit gaming for nearly a year before 4E.
|
|
I do continue to buy the Saga books, for now. They're pretty good...even if the editing quality is crappy. Pretty soon, though, I might run out of compelling reasons to get them. I buy SW minis and D&D minis, though fewer of those now that I'm playing it less.
I *would* buy some more old-edition PDFs but can't anymore. So. To keep me giving them money they need to keep doing a good job on Saga, minis, and bring back PDFs (at least the oop stuff).
M
The SECR was great, but some of the quality of WotC Star Wars did begin to lack... Threats of the Galaxy was a drippy <expletive deleted>, it is absolutely useless except as a paper weight. Every freaking stat block seems to have some glaring error. It is the biggest waste of roleplaying money I've ever picked up, and I own the Hero Builder's Guidebook! Otherwise I like the other books.
WotC does seem to just think their LFL license is a carblanche to produce total crap sometimes. Alliance and Empire (mini set) was total crap. Those square bases were the most retarded thing in mini's history. The word Etzel comes to mind...
Here's a question: If 4e doesn't make a much money as some suits expect/want, will that speed up 5e or put it wa-a-a-ay in the future?I'd lean toward speed up 5e.
Microsoft is demonstrating that with its Vista to Windows 7 move.
Yeah, but Microsoft is super-successful over a long history. I guess we'll find out eventually...(though I imagine by then it will be strictly academic for me.)
|
|
Neither comments contain an ad hominem argument.
"An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the source making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim.
The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject."
The first references the presumed mental stability of the individual rather than addressing the argument.
The second address the motives of the individual, again rather than addressing the argument.
Both comments contain an ad hominem argument.
Yeah, but Microsoft is super-successful over a long history. I guess we'll find out eventually...(though I imagine by then it will be strictly academic for me.)Here's a question: If 4e doesn't make a much money as some suits expect/want, will that speed up 5e or put it wa-a-a-ay in the future?I'd lean toward speed up 5e.
Microsoft is demonstrating that with its Vista to Windows 7 move.
Well, as long as we are speaking academically. There truly are some serious parallels between Microsoft and WotC/Hasbro.
I'm not saying that is bad, or good, but that we will probably witness similar paths for a while longer between them.
Here's a question: If 4e doesn't make a much money as some suits expect/want, will that speed up 5e or put it wa-a-a-ay in the future?
Sooner rather then later, I think. I don't think this will much to do about 4e sales, but it will have to do with marketing to make 2011 sales gain a major boost. This is all assuming that I'm wrong and 5e will not be a computer game only.
TTFN DRE
Hey hey hey! Don't go blaming us Realms haters for what happened to the setting. :-) I hate FR with a passion, and even I don't think what happened to it was right. <other stuff>
You can't hate the Realms that much, if you're using their only good Drow goddess as your avatar! :)
It was nearly 10 years on the 3E run so I doubt that we will see a 5E as early as 2011. Maybe 2013 if things are going extremely horrible for Wiz/Hasbro with the D&D brand still.
I understand. And I mean that from someone who liked the 'basic black' of the Realms. Look at what MWP did with Dragonlance, Test of the Twins was/is awesome. (Though I think the 3.x redo of the modules shows they're a bit long in the teeth.)That is, in a nutshell, why I hate the Realms- because there was so much wasted potential in other settings that many ignored for the basic black that is Toril. I'm still a huge Dragonlance, Dark Sun, Spelljammer and Planescape fan.3) License and marketing. Take all the 'dead worlds' and license them. They'll thrive or die on the merits of the publishers, and the heir company profits, both from Licensing fees and from sales of products. Also the leaner and meaner companies can innovate, things the heir company can learn/steal.I don't know why they don't do this anyway. They've got so many popular campaign worlds that can't be developed to their fullest extent just because they don't have the time to work on all of them. Things like Greyhawk could still be money makers, albiet they may not make as much money as FR, but are still viable. Its like cutting off all of your other fingers becuase you mostly use your thumb and index fingers.
Finally. Someone who UNDERSTANDS. It was getting tiresome being the one malcontent in a room of Elminster-loving Drizzt clones(the sad thing is I'm NOT kidding- my wife will back me up on this one regarding the group we met in). So much potential and so much life in other settings, lost but for the activity of a few dedicated fans. Maybe this did more good than harm, because these settings were left relatively untouched by hamhanded efforts to "update" the Realms, particularly where 4th ed is involved.
Finally. Someone who UNDERSTANDS. It was getting tiresome being the one malcontent in a room of Elminster-loving Drizzt clones(the sad thing is I'm NOT kidding- my wife will back me up on this one regarding the group we met in). So much potential and so much life in other settings, lost but for the activity of a few dedicated fans. Maybe this did more good than harm, because these settings were left relatively untouched by hamhanded efforts to "update" the Realms, particularly where 4th ed is involved.I understand. And I mean that from someone who liked the 'basic black' of the Realms. Look at what MWP did with Dragonlance, Test of the Twins was/is awesome. (Though I think the 3.x redo of the modules shows they're a bit long in the teeth.)That is, in a nutshell, why I hate the Realms- because there was so much wasted potential in other settings that many ignored for the basic black that is Toril. I'm still a huge Dragonlance, Dark Sun, Spelljammer and Planescape fan.3) License and marketing. Take all the 'dead worlds' and license them. They'll thrive or die on the merits of the publishers, and the heir company profits, both from Licensing fees and from sales of products. Also the leaner and meaner companies can innovate, things the heir company can learn/steal.I don't know why they don't do this anyway. They've got so many popular campaign worlds that can't be developed to their fullest extent just because they don't have the time to work on all of them. Things like Greyhawk could still be money makers, albiet they may not make as much money as FR, but are still viable. Its like cutting off all of your other fingers becuase you mostly use your thumb and index fingers.
I never cared for the realms, and maybe it was the Drizzt books that turned me off.
That being said, a lot of people did like the Realms. A lot of people had long running campaigns in the Realms.
If Wizards wanted an entirely new setting, they could simply write one. But they really ticked off a lot of people by simply pulling a Bobby Ewing and rewriting canon for the Realms. (Mystra cannot die, if she does, another will take her place. The nature of the Weave. And the Shadowweave.)
What they've left open is the fact that in the Realms as they've reshaped it, there are still a LOT of people alive who remember how things were. Back when Mystra was immortal, and gnomes had blue eyes, and where the crap did all those robots come from.
The Living Forgotten Realms campaign at our local store had an enormous speed bump when a local player (not me) built his Eladrin Wizard as a true believer in Mystra and the fact that she was his god and even if she had died, another would take her place. One scenario placed us in what used to be a temple of Mystra and we were supposed to reclaim the deed to it. It was defended by a spirit who had been a Priest/Cleric of Mystra in life. His character not only refused to fight the spirit, but was willing to fight the party to protect the spirit and temple from desecration. (Sorry, tangent there).
I think this just boils down to another public relations failure on WOTC's part. In trying to introduce a concept like Spellscars, they alienated a large audience that didn't want to see their favorite campaign setting raped in the process.
Neither comments contain an ad hominem argument.
...The first references the presumed mental stability of the individual rather than addressing the argument. The second address the motives of the individual, again rather than addressing the argument. Both comments contain an ad hominem argument.
I think the prof added a little extra something-something to his Earl Grey that morning.
OT:
There's always been one thing about that phrase that bothered me: the word "argument."
|
I liked the realms. A lot. I liked a few of the books. I didn't become a Drizzt nor Elminster fan, (nor anyone's fan, FWIW), but I liked the level of detail in that world. Two people could talk about the very same cities and NPCs even if they didn't play on the same table. That's what I liked. Details on NPC life and Geography, not to mention a huge amount of gods. You weren't required to own everything to run a game (unless you had one of those "BUT THIS BOOK SAYS..." players).
When 4E came along, as I saw the changes being anounced in Wizard's page, it was as if I heard the designers say something like:
"Hummmm... let's see, this is the checklist of what Tnemeh loves in Forgotten Realms, right? Let's get this all burnt down to the ground. NOW."
I was starting to invest in 3.X books, looking forward to 4E. RPG books are sold a bit expensive here in Mexico. Since I don't live in a big city, the next bookstore with RPG stuff is 250 miles from here; I bought a few 3.X and Wizards lost a potentially constant consumer. With what they did to FR, the changes sometimes were so radical that I believe they would've been better off doing a whole new world and leaving things like they were.
It was nearly 10 years on the 3E run so I doubt that we will see a 5E as early as 2011. Maybe 2013 if things are going extremely horrible for Wiz/Hasbro with the D&D brand still.
You might be right, 2011 will be 4.5, then the computer game.
I liked the realms. A lot. I liked a few of the books. I didn't become a Drizzt nor Elminster fan, (nor anyone's fan, FWIW), but I liked the level of detail in that world. Two people could talk about the very same cities and NPCs even if they didn't play on the same table. That's what I liked. Details on NPC life and Geography, not to mention a huge amount of gods. You weren't required to own everything to run a game (unless you had one of those "BUT THIS BOOK SAYS..." players).
When 4E came along, as I saw the changes being anounced in Wizard's page, it was as if I heard the designers say something like:
"Hummmm... let's see, this is the checklist of what Tnemeh loves in Forgotten Realms, right? Let's get this all burnt down to the ground. NOW."I was starting to invest in 3.X books, looking forward to 4E. RPG books are sold a bit expensive here in Mexico. Since I don't live in a big city, the next bookstore with RPG stuff is 250 miles from here; I bought a few 3.X and Wizards lost a potentially constant consumer. With what they did to FR, the changes sometimes were so radical that I believe they would've been better off doing a whole new world and leaving things like they were.
I agree.
There's rumors that 2010 is going to see Dark Sun for 4E. I have visions of Draj being remade by WOTC into a lush and verdant landscape inhabited primarily by Mules, who now resemble Pixies, only with larger breasts.
There's rumors that 2010 is going to see Dark Sun for 4E. I have visions of Draj being remade by WOTC into a lush and verdant landscape inhabited primarily by Mules, who now resemble Pixies, only with larger breasts.
You, sir, have made a 4th ed fan out of me.
There's rumors that 2010 is going to see Dark Sun for 4E. I have visions of Draj being remade by WOTC into a lush and verdant landscape inhabited primarily by Mules, who now resemble Pixies, only with larger breasts.
Heh. You made my day :-)
Perhaps its for the best that my favorite settings from TSR days are dead nowadays - Greyhawk, Al-Qadim and Mystara (not necessarily in that order). I would hate seeing a robot as member of the Circle of Eight.
Stefan
An interesting rant from former WotC VP Ryan Dancey
Where, linky please
For example in the startpost. Or here.
Gary could not as he no longer owned it, and had not for a long while
There's rumors that 2010 is going to see Dark Sun for 4E. I have visions of Draj being remade by WOTC into a lush and verdant landscape inhabited primarily by Mules, who now resemble Pixies, only with larger breasts.
Heh. You made my day :-)
Perhaps its for the best that my favorite settings from TSR days are dead nowadays - Greyhawk, Al-Qadim and Mystara (not necessarily in that order). I would hate seeing a robot as member of the Circle of Eight.
Stefan
Hey! That's anti-robotism!
Hey! That's anti-robotism!I would hate seeing a robot as member of the Circle of Eight.
Stefan
No. Only anti-trash-my-favorite-setting-ism. If I hurt any robots feelings with this, I apologize. But they simply have no place in my WoG, they should not be displaced from their natural habitat, known as Eberron.
Stefan
Hey! That's anti-robotism!I would hate seeing a robot as member of the Circle of Eight.
Stefan
No. Only anti-trash-my-favorite-setting-ism. If I hurt any robots feelings with this, I apologize. But they simply have no place in my WoG, they should not be displaced from their natural habitat, known as Eberron.
Stefan
Aw, just kidding, Stefan- I was watching that hilarious Old Spice two things commercial and I had to reference it.
Aw, just kidding, Stefan- I was watching that hilarious Old Spice two things commercial and I had to reference it.
No problem at all - my answer was not meant all that serious as well ;-)
I have no idea what commercial you are talking about, though - there are quite some differences between the US and Europe, and it happened several times that I just don´t (or rather can´t) catch the reference because whatever is referred to is either unknown or known rather differently over here, not to mention the language barrier (I´m german and live in Germany as well.) or rather things getting lost in translation.
Stefan
No. Only anti-trash-my-favorite-setting-ism. If I hurt any robots feelings with this, I apologize. But they simply have no place in my WoG, they should not be displaced from their natural habitat, known as Eberron.Hey! That's anti-robotism!I would hate seeing a robot as member of the Circle of Eight.
Stefan
Really? I thought that their "natural" setting would have been d20 Future (... several sub-variants).
CEO
|
dumb question but does anyone know how much WotC paid for DND in the first place? As an aside how much did Habro pay for WotC?
I know both of the answers to those questions, but unfortunately, I can't tell or they'll kill me! :)
-Lisa
Here's a question: If 4e doesn't make a much money as some suits expect/want, will that speed up 5e or put it wa-a-a-ay in the future?
I wouldn't be surprised if WotC did an Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 4th ed instead of a straight up 5th edition.
|
Contributor
|
Here's a question: If 4e doesn't make a much money as some suits expect/want, will that speed up 5e or put it wa-a-a-ay in the future?
Wouldn't that depend on what the market research tells them is "wrong" with the current version?
If sales are low because people don't like certain aspects of the rules, then it would speed up 5e.
But if sales are low because of a poor economy or some other factor that developers can't or won't impact with a new edition, then that factor is more likely to postpone (or have no effect on) when a new edition is published.
At least, that's my best guess.
dumb question but does anyone know how much WotC paid for DND in the first place? As an aside how much did Habro pay for WotC?I know both of the answers to those questions, but unfortunately, I can't tell or they'll kill me! :)
-Lisa
** spoiler omitted **
So, in other words, they would kill Paizo? (... via their lawyers)
|
CEO
|
So, in other words, they would kill Paizo? (... via their lawyers)dumb question but does anyone know how much WotC paid for DND in the first place? As an aside how much did Habro pay for WotC?I know both of the answers to those questions, but unfortunately, I can't tell or they'll kill me! :)
-Lisa
** spoiler omitted **
Nope, just me. :) Its the thermite bomb attached to my lower brain stem. Boom. Dead.
-Lisa
So, in other words, they would kill Paizo? (... via their lawyers)dumb question but does anyone know how much WotC paid for DND in the first place? As an aside how much did Habro pay for WotC?I know both of the answers to those questions, but unfortunately, I can't tell or they'll kill me! :)
-Lisa
** spoiler omitted **
Nope, just me. :) Its the thermite bomb attached to my lower brain stem. Boom. Dead.
-Lisa
Well ... in that case, how much did WoTC pay for TSR? :P