Mearls pleading for unity


Gamer Life General Discussion

651 to 700 of 1,627 << first < prev | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge

Mairkurion {tm} wrote:
It doesn't matter what post this thread ends with...

I know, it matters not...

Still...


Digitalelf wrote:
Mothman wrote:
If and when there is a new edition of D&D there will be people who get upset by it no matter what approach is taken. Wotc can’t control that. What they can do is look at what has come before and see what they can do to avoid provoking such a negative emotional response.
I SO wish this thread could end with your post...

+1

Liberty's Edge

Digitalelf wrote:
Mothman wrote:
If and when there is a new edition of D&D there will be people who get upset by it no matter what approach is taken. Wotc can’t control that. What they can do is look at what has come before and see what they can do to avoid provoking such a negative emotional response.
I SO wish this thread could end with your post...

Dude, it did for a minute! You ruined it! ;-)


Mothman wrote:
Digitalelf wrote:
Mothman wrote:
If and when there is a new edition of D&D there will be people who get upset by it no matter what approach is taken. Wotc can’t control that. What they can do is look at what has come before and see what they can do to avoid provoking such a negative emotional response.
I SO wish this thread could end with your post...
Dude, it did for a minute! You ruined it! ;-)

+1

;)


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
ProfessorCirno wrote:
I mean for crying out loud there's a whole TV Tropes article devoted to making fun of grappling rules.

Isn't TV Tropes basically a wiki that anyone can write anything in? I mean, a joke from Order of the Stick is not exactly a TV Trope.


deinol wrote:
ProfessorCirno wrote:
I mean for crying out loud there's a whole TV Tropes article devoted to making fun of grappling rules.
Isn't TV Tropes basically a wiki that anyone can write anything in? I mean, a joke from Order of the Stick is not exactly a TV Trope.

Are you implying that someone we know went and wrote that Trope?

ARE YOU?!?!?!?

Liberty's Edge

Scott Betts wrote:
I've long seen the tabletop gaming community as one of the ugliest I've ever experienced, from a personal conduct standpoint (and, speaking as someone who has spent a lot of time in politics, that's saying something). Furthermore, I believe that the standards of personal conduct in the gaming community have been, historically and presently, a huge barrier to the expansion and mass appeal of the hobby. I think that, frankly, the community could use a stern talking to. Goodness knows I've been guilty of lapses in conduct myself, but I don't think there's any reason to be complacent about the whole thing and just say "It is what it is."

I definitely think that when it comes to internet ‘debates’ a lot of people should take a deep breath, calm down, step back and stop trying to win the internet.

I am generally opposed to things that present a barrier to the expansion and mass appeal of our hobby (and when I say ‘our’ I’m including old D&D, new D&D, Pathfinder ... ‘cos to someone outside the hobby they’re pretty much exactly the same thing). I disagree with your statement that the tabletop gaming community is ugly from a personal conduct standpoint. There are individuals who are, certainly. And often those individuals are very vocal (or are simply more likely to be noticed). That is true, unfortunately, of people in general.

However, my real life experiences of gamers leads me to believe that although they are often passionate, and often a bit snobby when it comes to ‘their’ particular brand, edition or style of game, things can generally be discussed in a pretty reasonable manner, and personal conduct is generally pretty good.

Change the venue to the internet and it all goes to s&#%. It’s not exclusive to gamers. Go to any place on the internet where somewhat controversial topics can be discussed, or people might have differences of opinion and watch the flames fly!

I am not advocating a reduction in personal responsibility, or saying that people shouldn’t calm down about things, or that gamers as individuals can’t act as better ambassadors to our hobby. What I am saying is that emotional responses are a part of being human, they are amplified by the internet, and that the internet allows a few people’s opinions to reach many and reach a critical mass.

A smart company, catering to a customer base who are perhaps over represented on the internet, and using web based media to advertise and even release some of their products should try to take this into account.

Scott Betts wrote:
The word "nerdrage" is recognizably widespread for a reason. I think we could do with a lot less of it, regardless of whether we feel we're being "treated" any better as customers.

I completely agree with this bit of what you said. But anyone has a right to say ‘I don’t like this advertisement / marketing’ (they even have a right to say ‘I feel insulted by it’) or ‘This product doesn’t appeal to me’ (for whatever reason) and not buy it. If that can be done with less nerdrage (and why couldn't it?), I’m cool with it. I would think though that the company making that product would want to listen to what people are saying (even if they don’t agree with it, even if it is not being said nicely, even if it is totally irrational) so that they can avoid such responses in future – assuming that there is some sort of impact on their bottom line.

Contributor

ProfessorCirno wrote:
Kevin Andrew Murphy wrote:

Compare that to 1st edition, where the DMG actually has the "Random Hooker Generator." Okay, it's not called that, but there's a subtable of the random townsfolk generator which will tell you what sort of prostitute you run into, anything from the "slovenly trull" to the dancer "prostituting herself as it pleases her."

Looking at 1st ed's random hooker generator vs. 4e's descendants of incompetent albeit prudish Satanists? I know which sounds "edgier" to me.

Neither is "edgy," one is just depressingly casual in it's misogyny.

And Bael Turath has nothing to do with "incompetant albeit prudishly chaste Satanists."

Stop pulling things out of nowhere.

So you're saying the folk of Bael Turath were competent Satanists who knew exactly what they were getting into, including growing giant horns and crocodile tails, considered it a good deal (and were right in their opinions) and sealed the bargain with a wild orgy with the Dukes of Hell?

Sorry, I'm entitled to my opinion, and from what I remember of the 4e PHB description, the folk of Bael Turath did not know that the bargain would make them grow giant horns and crocodile tails (making them "incompetent Satanists" in my book) nor did they ever seem to think that sex with devils might be a fun thing to do--even those kinky dominatrix erinyes devils. Thus I deem them "prudishly chaste," especially given that for three editions before, people were having sex with fiends, even if for a while they were calling them "tamari" and "battyzoo."


Post resurrection:

Oh, I understand the frustration of marketting. I've drawn the ire of the local powers that be by being critical of some of their marketting.
Still, what I am getting from you is that you don't view the current edition as really "D&D". That it doesn't have the same cows (though some of those weren't even heifers in earlier editions) or feel or whatever.

Ok, but now let's take a step back from the deeply entrenched position of the old school gamers and look at it from an outsiders point of view. This outsider has no idea about spelljammer or darksun or ravenloft or even the forgotten realms. They may vaguely recognize Drizzt, though not know his name, just from seeing the covers of books in the sci-fi/fantasy sections. So many of those cows and true to the past settings and whatever are totally unknown to them. So what is D&D to them? What are their basic ideas about it from what little exposure they have picked up in their life?

1. D&D is a game for geeks.
2. You use dice to play it.
3. You often use little miniature people to play it.
4. It is based on fantasy ideas.
5. You have elves, dwarves, humans, and halflings in it.
6. You have fighters, wizards, thieves/rogues, and a healer in it.
7. You have hps.
8. You have a lot of options on how to build your character.

Does 4e have these things? If yes, then to an outsider, someone who may just now be getting into gaming, that is what they are expecting. That is D&D to them. Not FR, not Darksun, not half-orc barbarians, not gnome illusions, not Gygaxian naturalism, not G-N-S theory. People get so wrapped up in what they have experienced and liked that they forget that very first day they played, before they even knew the rules. They weren't worried about minis or if the realms had been blown up or anything. They just wanted to play a fantasy game where they were a hero, and that is what D&D was for them. 4e, just like every other edition, provides that experience, and that is why it is still D&D.


ProfessorCirno wrote:

I dunno man, I've been in a 2e game for awhile and I still have issues with THAC0. I even started in 2e, but it ain't like riding a bike.

I find one round modifiers easier then having to keep track of the rounds, personally. Especially with a turn being ten rounds and rounds being a minute long (and then changed to 6 seconds in 3e) and etc etc.

That isn't to say 4e isn't complex - it is - but D&D has always had it's strange complexities.

Also pulling the pdfs was a way dumb move when it happened and remains to be a dumb move :[

Yeah Thac0/Descending AC can be confusing to work out, and I do find the BAB system to be simpler than Thac0 and a useful fix. But you have to admit that someone who doesn't know what Thac0 stands for asking about it while a guy next to him annoyingly chirps up 4-5 times in 20 seconds about wanting it to be his turn has nothing to do with how difficult the system is and everything to do with that guy being a jerk to the new guy, which rubbed me the wrong way and seemed odd considering how much longer a round in 4e can take.

As for the round by round modifiers, I found it to be more work because there are so many to keep track of in the larger fights 4e allows, and I had trouble keeping track of them and when they went into effect when I first started. I'm sure if I stuck with it and got more familiar I'd eventually have mastered it, but from the context of someone brand new to the system it wasn't something simple and intuitive.

All that said, it doesn't really matter much to me, it's just one ad that I think probably could've been done a lot better, but which I would have completely ignored(along with and rules complaints I had about 4e) if their Forgotten Realms setting had turned out to be something I wanted to play. Even with everything they've done and changed I would still be a WotC customer, on occasion at least, if they sold their old edition pdfs or offered DDI articles on a pick and choose basis so I didn't have to subscribe to a bunch of mechanics I don't use to get the bits of Realm lore I want to look over out of it.

So there's part of my suggestion for Mearls if he wants unity. Release old edition pdfs again, so that people can find them without scouring ebay or pirating them, make sure the VT is awesome and supports every edition, release it separately from DDI(will never happen, I know), and maybe offer DDI articles a la carte for those of us who don't use 4e rules. If WotC did all, or even some, of that I'd seriously consider shunting some of my gaming budget their direction.

Contributor

Kevin Andrew Murphy wrote:
especially given that for three editions before, people were having sex with fiends,

I'm not getting into this thread in any capacity, but I do have to say for the record -something which I hope we can all agree upon- that regardless of which edition of D&D you play, be it 1e, 2e, 3e, 3.5, 4e, Pathfinder, or anything else, each of them can be improved by having sex with fiends. ;)

Dark Archive

Todd Stewart wrote:
Kevin Andrew Murphy wrote:
especially given that for three editions before, people were having sex with fiends,
I'm not getting into this thread in any capacity, but I do have to say for the record -something which I hope we can all agree upon- that regardless of which edition of D&D you play, be it 1e, 2e, 3e, 3.5, 4e, Pathfinder, or anything else, each of them can be improved by having sex with fiends. ;)

Only as long as said fiend is of the age of consent, and willing. Then yes it can only improve a situation. I mean, if people weren't willing to have sex with fiends, I wouldn't be married, now would I ;)


Kevin Andrew Murphy wrote:

So you're saying the folk of Bael Turath were competent Satanists who knew exactly what they were getting into, including growing giant horns and crocodile tails, considered it a good deal (and were right in their opinions) and sealed the bargain with a wild orgy with the Dukes of Hell?

Sorry, I'm entitled to my opinion, and from what I remember of the 4e PHB description, the folk of Bael Turath did not know that the bargain would make them grow giant horns and crocodile tails (making them "incompetent Satanists" in my book) nor did they ever seem to think that sex with devils might be a fun thing to do--even those kinky dominatrix erinyes devils. Thus I deem them "prudishly chaste," especially given that for three editions before, people were having sex with fiends, even if for a while they were calling them "tamari" and "battyzoo."

You are frighteningly obsessed with having imaginary sex with imaginary creatures.

Mothman wrote:
If and when there is a new edition of D&D there will be people who get upset by it no matter what approach is taken. Wotc can’t control that. What they can do is look at what has come before and see what they can do to avoid provoking such a negative emotional response.

No. You don't negotiate with a child who's holding their breath.

If there's anything WotC should have learned from this it's that nerds are just as terrible as our stereotypes make us out to be.

Contributor

Dark_Mistress wrote:
Kevin Andrew Murphy wrote:
Compare that to 1st edition, where the DMG actually has the "Random Hooker Generator." Okay, it's not called that, but there's a subtable of the random townsfolk generator which will tell you what sort of prostitute you run into, anything from the "slovenly trull" to the dancer "prostituting herself as it pleases her."
Oh random whore table how i miss thee. :)

Fear not, Dark Mistress! The Random Harlot Generator is not only back, but has now been fully annotated!

However, I must agree at least partially with Professor Cirno's assessment of "casual misogyny," not so much because of the list of harlots as because of the lack of equal time, since there was no equivalent table for encountering gigolos.

This should be remedied. So here, forthwith, in my best imitation of Gygax's original prose, a supplementary Random Gigolo Generator:

Quote:

Gigolo encounters can be with carefree rent boys or proud eunuchs, thus making it difficult for the party to distinguish each encounter for what it is. (In fact, the encounter could be with an actor only prostituting himself as it pleases him, an aging roue, or even a cougar on the prowl for a new boy toy.) In addition to offering the usual fare, the gigolo is 30% likely to know valuable information, 15% likely to make up something in order to gain a reward, and 20% likely to be, or work with, a thief. You may find it useful to use the sub-table below to see which sort of gigolo encounter takes place:

1-10 Two-Bit Hustler
11-25 Carefree Rent Boy
26-35 Amusing Boy Toy
36-50 Flirtatious Man-Whore
51-65 Old Lech
66-75 Courtly Catamite
76-85 Outlandish Drag Queen
86-90 Proud Eunuch
91-92 Aging Roue
93-94 Kept Man
95-98 Cougar on the Prowl
99-100 Dungeon Master

A courtly catamite will resemble a regular courtier, a dungeon master may be mistaken for a torturer or executioner, the other gigolos mistaken for fops, and so forth.

There. The matter has been remedied.


ProfessorCirno wrote:
No. You don't negotiate with a child who's holding their breath.

You do if said child is the one holding your pursestrings. Also, if said person isn't really a child but perhaps an admittedly overwrought adult, that person can do a lot of damage to your image via word-of-mouth or internet retelling of their grievances, real or imagined. If a company can, it's best to reel that in sooner than later.

ProfessorCirno wrote:
If there's anything WotC should have learned from this it's that nerds are just as terrible as our stereotypes make us out to be.

A little heavy on the self-loathing, don't you think? Nerds aren't different from anyone else with a passionate opinion. Go lurk on sports messageboards for a while. There's some real vitriol being tossed around. Or political chatrooms - whoa. Get my drift? People just get goofy about whatever they perceive as important.


I with K on this one .... Mothman has put my argument most eloquently and he can speak for me on this issue.

Liberty's Edge

ProfessorCirno wrote:
No. You don't negotiate with a child who's holding their breath.

I don’t remember holding my breath. Or claiming that wotc killed my dog, or did wrong by me in some way, or ranting at all really (well, ok, maybe one or two small rants). But at the end of the day they made some decisions that I didn’t think were the right ones and produced a game that doesn’t particularly appeal to me, that I have never played and never spent money on. I hold no ill will towards them for that.

But if a lot of people feel the same way I do (and every single gamer I know in real life has not bought 4E), and that affects their bottom line in some way, then it might be worthwhile ‘negotiating’.

And isn’t that what Mearls says he is doing? Listening to gamers? Theoretically both gamers who do and don’t play 4E?

ProfessorCirno wrote:

If there's anything WotC should have learned from this it's that nerds are just as terrible as our stereotypes make us out to be.

Speak for yourself. I’m neither a nerd nor terrible.

Dark Archive

Talonne Hauk wrote:
Nerds aren't different from anyone else with a passionate opinion. Go lurk on sports messageboards for a while. There's some real vitriol being tossed around. Or political chatrooms - whoa. Get my drift? People just get goofy about whatever they perceive as important.

Yeah. I'm always surprised by those who are hanging around with fans of a thing, and yet purport to be 'above' actually liking that thing or caring about that thing. Why deride other enthusiasts? Why be so emo as to look down on people who are openly excited about something? Isn't the world-weary goth facade, where one lounges around looking scornfully through mascaraed eyes and a cloud of clove cigarette smoke at those who display their feelings, 'so five minutes ago?'

And yeah, gamers got nuthin' on flamewars and CAPLOCKOFRAGE histrionics. The stuff I used to see on Mac vs. PC debates, back in the pre-messageboard BBS days, makes 'insults' like 'grognard' and 'fanboy' seem like sexy chatup lines.

Vegan vs. vegetarian vs. locavore vs. raw foods disputes can get pretty fun as well, as can the 'vaccination causes autism' crowd.

I've seen truly vitriolic exchanges over the medical necessity (or lack thereof / falsified data points / socially controlling agenda) behind circumcision.

Want to know what to do if your child has night terrors? Yikes. Avoid the deep end of some of those discussions. Accusations of pedophilia and child abuse can crop up, either as causes of night terrors, or from reactions to some of the proposed solutions.

Gamers, for the most part, seem to be pretty even-keeled. We're already a small enough niche, that subdividing into factions pretty much just turns us into a circular firing squad. :)

As was said to 3.X supporters before Paizo announced Pathfinder, 'Nobody can take your books and rules away from you. Nobody is coming to your house and making you switch to the new edition at gunpoint.'

That's as true for 4e supporters, if WotC/Hasbro pull the plug as it was for 3.X supporters. Play the game you want to play. You'll always have the books and rules you've already gotten. (Heck, the 'death' of 3.5 was great for my collection. Lots of stuff was selling for cheap at the local Building 19, and online!)

Both sides won the edition wars. The fact that some appear to still be fighting them (and saying, all these years later, that one company or the other is *dooomed*) is just the gamer equivalent of those (legendary) 'lost platoons' of Japanese soldiers found on Pacific islands in the late '40s who didn't know that WW2 had ended.

Maybe they'll find their way out of the bushes and realize that peace has come in our time. We're all a bunch of polyhedral dice-rolling, elf(dwarf/tiefling/etc)-wannabe, dragon-slaying, magic-using nerds.

There is no high ground from which we have any legitimacy to deride other such nerds, since we all live in the same glass house.


Hydro wrote:


If major series videogames were marketed based on the idea that previous titles in the series were bad, I think that that would be unwise, and would come across as scornful of the franchise's fanbase.

Well, sometimes, when one of the games in a series tries something new, the new ideas brought in aren't that well-received. They lose fans over old elements lost, and don't gain enough new fans for new features to make up for it.

An example would be the Heroes of Might and Magic series, where part IV did away with several key elements of the game and strategies employed. At least the way I heard of from people who played HoMM IV and earlier, that was not very well-received. I never played anything earlier than HoMM V, so I can't tell if this was the general consensus, but considering that apparently a lot of those concepts for part V, it seems it might have been so.

In such cases, you often hear/read in interviews with developers how their attempt to go into a new direction was not well-received and that they'd go back to the old (maybe in new ways, but definitely closer to the game's roots).

However, they usually don't put that stuff into ads, they usually have the proper tone, and they rarely (if ever) say that the complete series up until now was crap.

The reason for the latter is that if you do a game and nobody likes it, you don't do a sequel. And even if you do, you probably won't keep making sequels in hopes of someone liking it eventually.

No, you scrap that game line and its name and start anew. You only keep using a name if that name is well-known and will sell some product all by itself...

Furthermore, I don't think that even "regular" computer games are a good example. They're still not the same as RPGs: Usually, when they make a game, they make that game. They might release some expansions if the game is successful enough, but sooner or later they'll do a new game. From that moment on, it's unlikely that they do much with the old game. However, nothing keeps you from using it more or less forever (technical difficulties notwithstanding), because beyond expansions and maybe patches, many games don't even need anything else from the game creators. Except maybe selling it. Which is something you usually keep doing as long as people buy it.

Like Mario Party 8 or whatever. They create it, they release it, they keep selling it until nobody buys it any more (or not enough people buy it any more). You can still get one used.

Multiplayer games (like your regular first person shooter or some real-time strategy) might depend on official servers for it, but that's it, mostly. And many of the regular games don't even need official servers (or the official support needed is negligible)

A better comparison would be MMO games. WoW, Everquest, Eve, Final Fantasy XI and XIV, whatever. For those games, you absolutely need the official servers. If Blizzard would release WoW 2 today and at the same time (or months or years later) shut down the WoW (1) servers, you could no longer play your older game at all.

Roleplaying games are not a one-shot deal. At least not the big ones. Whether it's D&D, Pathfinder, WoD, L5R, or any other bigger game, there is a steady stream of books coming out for it: Rules expansions, guidebooks, campaign setting sourcebooks, whatever.

So a new version (or edition, as RPGs call them) usually means that no new stuff for the older version is released. And a lot of people like to get a regular fix. So if you like an older edition, you're cut off as soon as a new edition comes. Of course, that's hardly avoidable.

wotc went further than that, though: They tried their level best not only to stop active support (in new books), they also did all they could to eliminate old support:

They made it illegal to sell older PDFs - or even to download PDFs you bought before. They gave a ridiculous and totally transparent cop-out explanation for this ("It's piracy, those evil persons release the PDFs so quickly we lose billions in profit" or something like that), but that doesn't explain why the old, out of print books were pulled, too.

They also tried to make people give up on OGL when they wanted to get on to GSL. They pulled several licenses for stuff they outsourced. They pulled the d20 license so all the stuff made with that license was in trouble.

That's more akin to EActivisionBlizzardWhatever not only disabling the official servers to Gruesome Carnage I immediately when they released Gruesome Carnage II, but also to make companies hosting dedicated servers for II to sign a contract that they would no longer host servers for GC I; and stop selling GC immediately; and make every electronic seller take it out of the catalogue; and deleting all patches from the servers; and put out an add that GC I is for cheaters with too small penises or something.

Hydro wrote:

If Paizo announced Pathfinder 2.0, and tried to sell it by implying that Pathfinder was bad, I would consider that to be unwise and scornful of their fanbase.

Seriously, if you think that this whole thing is based on an audience already predisposed to hate Wizards, then consider that example. Make another thread about it if you want: ask Pathfinder fans how they would react if, at the announcement of a new edition (however many years down the road), Paizo ran an ad at GenCon which depicted a bunch of players sitting around playing Pathfinder and not having fun, then followed it up with some vague imagery of people having a blast with Pathfinder 2.0.
I'm going to take a guess right now at what the most common response would be: "Paizo wouldn't do that."

Exactly. They just wouldn't do it. And if they did, they'd lose at least me as a customer. Probably many other people, too.

Hydro wrote:


And, yes, another factor at play here IS that geeks aren't like other audiences, and that they become more invested in the games they love than in the pizza they eat. You can call them 'ridiculous' or immature or oversensitive or whatever until you're blue in the face, but it is what it is.

The thing is that Pathfinder, or D&D, or whatever, isn't just a game. It's not Monopoly or Uno, something you occasionally play on rainy sunday afternoons or at a dinner party to pass the time until you pop in the film you want to watch.

Roleplaying games are a hobby. Something people sink lots of spare time and money into. Monopoly costs you 30 bucks or something, once (Unless you want to buy every version of the game there is - then, you have to sell your house, your car, and your children, but not all games are like that), and the time you spend is almost exactly the time you play: You need a couple of minutes to set up everything, play for an hour or two, and take another couple of minutes to put everything back into the box. And that's pretty much it. Except for the first time, where you'll need half an hour or so to read the rules.

RPGs usually set you back 50 bucks or more for the core rules alone. Depending on what kinds of accessories you want, and whether you also want pre-made adventures, extra rulebooks, campaign settings, miniatures, and all the other stuff you can buy for it, this could cost you more than 50 bucks every month. More than 100. Plus extra expenditures like gas for driving to the game site, and maybe ordering in some food.

You'll spend a lot more than half an hour to even read the basic rulebook once. You'll often need more than that one read-through to get it, and lots of practical experience. And you'll need some time to come up with a character (especially at first). And game sessions usually last hours, once every week or so (some people play less, some get to play more).

And the GM often has a lot more work, especially if he writes his own adventures. Unless you wing everything, you need to come up with stories, set them in locations you need to make up, people them with characters you have to create, do stat blocks, and all the other stuff.

Calling all that time and money spent "just a game" is being completely ignorant to its nature, or else condescending.

Hydro wrote:


Finally, and this is me getting really idealistic, but.. no, I don't think that games are the same as other products, and I don't think the market for them is the same as other markets. Games aren't just an everyday necessity that I pick up at the grocery store. Games are something I love and am invested in. You don't have to grab my attention with cheap salesmanship; you already have my attention because I love your game.

Exactly. RPGs isn't something you get into or indulge at a whim. You don't go to the RPG Supermarket, see Carrion Crown at a discount this week, and "just feel like a 12 month campaign of Gothic horror". At last, I don't. Some people are too impulsive for their own good, but chances are they felt like becoming a professional soldier in some conflict area for the next 12 years first...


Charlie Sheen wrote:
I take great umbrage with this edition debate when people think that defeat is not an option. Win here and win there; picking a fight with a warlock. Now what? Is this the moment where a guy like crashes in the corner like, 'Oh my God, it's all my mom's fault!' Shut up! Shut up! Stop! Move forward.

Charlie, it's time for meth and menthol rubdowns! (tee heee!)


Mothman wrote:
KaeYoss wrote:
I hereby allow you to speak for me in this matter, since you hit the nail on the head.
I just don't think I'm ready for that kind of responsibility KaeYoss. ;-)

Oh, don't fret! If you say something in my name which I don't agree to, I will hunt you down and torture you to death over the course of weeks, so you'll make this mistake only once at worst! I can live with people screwing up once, especially when I can soothe the offended parties egos with showings of your mutilated body!

So go right ahead! ;-P


Guy Humual wrote:


What I am attacking is This ad.

As you should. I just watched it again. It doesn't make sense.

This "What's the troll? The lint is just lint" crap - how does that relate to the game? I was not aware that 4e came with perfect miniatures for every single monster in their monster books. In fact, I think they stopped doing miniatures altogether.

So how will 4e fix that minotroll problem?

Moving on to the THAC0 part: So THAC0 is that hard to grasp? I played with THAC0. I agree that attack bonuses are better, because unneeded complications is, well unneeded. But what I get out of this part of the ad is mainly: "If you're too stupid for basic math, play 4e. We made it for idiots like you." They're basically insulting their potential consumer base, calling them too stupid for basic math.

And the grapple thing? More of the same, only this time, it seems that they target the "Unable to consult a book" audience.

I'm really torn: Does this ad insult the old edition and everyone who played it, or does it insult the people they want to sell the new game to?


Pathfinder Card Game, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Mothman wrote:


Change the venue to the internet and it all goes to s@&&. It’s not exclusive to gamers. Go to any place on the internet where somewhat controversial topics can be discussed, or people might have differences of opinion and watch the flames fly!

I think a wise (or at least clever) man has in fact come up with an equation explaining this.


ProfessorCirno wrote:
No. You don't negotiate with a child who's holding their breath.

Given that 4th Edition exists, it seems that they do.


Mothman wrote:
but they probably should have predicted that many people react poorly to too much change too quickly.

Some of the key 3e designers (I think it was either Monte Cook or Sean K Reynolds) knew that. They said that they changed some things less tragically than they could have, and changed some things not at all, because too much change is bad for business.

Of course, it's possible that wotc fired everyone with that insight before they started in on 4e. Or they ignored those who repeated these warnings.


Kevin Andrew Murphy wrote:
even those kinky dominatrix erinyes devils.

You're talking about 4e, so that's "Those succubus devils".

However, I like your batty zoo concept and would love to subscribe to your newsletter.


Todd Stewart wrote:
Kevin Andrew Murphy wrote:
especially given that for three editions before, people were having sex with fiends,
I'm not getting into this thread in any capacity, but I do have to say for the record -something which I hope we can all agree upon- that regardless of which edition of D&D you play, be it 1e, 2e, 3e, 3.5, 4e, Pathfinder, or anything else, each of them can be improved by having sex with fiends. ;)

At first I thought "hell yeah!" but then I noticed that it was the Planar Pimp speaking.

So what's your cut? ;-P


I don't think there will be any unity in game styles, but there might be a chance for unity among gamers in general.

None of the editions are going anywhere, if WotC released 5e tomorrow all it would do is make yet another faction. 4e is already splitting into pro-and-anti-Essential camps. As long as there are people willing to play it, an edition will continue. And one of the byproducts of the Digital Revolution is that new information can be easily made and shared by fans, especially those covered by the OGL.

Meh. What I take away from all of this is the same lesson I got in 2008:

  • Some people like one edition over another
  • Some people will consider 'their' edition superior
  • Some will take any opportunity to vent their frustration that others like an 'inferior' product
  • Anonymity+Internet=rampant trollery

We need to just scale back and consider that everyone has taste differences. Just because I like Coke doesn't mean Pepsi is evil. I have issues with some of the descisions WotC has made over the years, but I do not hold that against 4e or its proponents. 4e is just as legitimate a game as any RPG. I'm sure there is room for everyone at the table, especially with MMORPGs stealing our members bit by bit. Let's focus on our similarities rather than our differences.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Brian E. Harris wrote:
ProfessorCirno wrote:
No. You don't negotiate with a child who's holding their breath.
Given that 4th Edition exists, it seems that they do.

OH SNAP!!!!


Set wrote:


As was said to 3.X supporters before Paizo announced Pathfinder, 'Nobody can take your books and rules away from you. Nobody is coming to your house and making you switch to the new edition at gunpoint.'

They can take away your DDI4e, though....

The way I read it at least some people don't bother much with the 4e books, they do all their characters over the online tools and get all the rules with some great sorting and whatnot, and the tool spits out a character sheet with all your powers printed out.

And if the actions from the 3e-4e transition are any indication, they might just go and shut down those tools for 4e when they bring 4e. As far as I know those tools are online only now, too.

Not that I'm hoping they will, but look at all the 3e and earlier PDFs you can legally download today...


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Set wrote:

As was said to 3.X supporters before Paizo announced Pathfinder, 'Nobody can take your books and rules away from you. Nobody is coming to your house and making you switch to the new edition at gunpoint.'

I know one of my biggest anxieties upon trying 4E and discovering that I didnt care for it was that my pool of 3.5 players might dry up as people wanted to play the newest edition.

It was literally the first time in over 27 years that I was considering leaving the hobby. At first it seemed that my fears were realized. I was the only person running a 3.5 game at our local meetups. The 4E people and organizers of the meetup were acting like complete douches deriding 3x at every given opportunity even though I was respectful of preference I found myself having to defend my choice of game on more than one occaaision.

Then Pathfinder was announced and the 3.5 base (well some of them) were energized again. Now I'm running a game at least once a month sometimes twice when schedule permits. If I had the time I'd run more.


Kevin Andrew Murphy wrote:
Dark_Mistress wrote:
Kevin Andrew Murphy wrote:
Compare that to 1st edition, where the DMG actually has the "Random Hooker Generator." Okay, it's not called that, but there's a subtable of the random townsfolk generator which will tell you what sort of prostitute you run into, anything from the "slovenly trull" to the dancer "prostituting herself as it pleases her."
Oh random whore table how i miss thee. :)

Fear not, Dark Mistress! The Random Harlot Generator is not only back, but has now been fully annotated!

However, I must agree at least partially with Professor Cirno's assessment of "casual misogyny," not so much because of the list of harlots as because of the lack of equal time, since there was no equivalent table for encountering gigolos.

This should be remedied. So here, forthwith, in my best imitation of Gygax's original prose, a supplementary Random Gigolo Generator:

Quote:

Gigolo encounters can be with carefree rent boys or proud eunuchs, thus making it difficult for the party to distinguish each encounter for what it is. (In fact, the encounter could be with an actor only prostituting himself as it pleases him, an aging roue, or even a cougar on the prowl for a new boy toy.) In addition to offering the usual fare, the gigolo is 30% likely to know valuable information, 15% likely to make up something in order to gain a reward, and 20% likely to be, or work with, a thief. You may find it useful to use the sub-table below to see which sort of gigolo encounter takes place:

1-10 Two-Bit Hustler
11-25 Carefree Rent Boy
26-35 Amusing Boy Toy
36-50 Flirtatious Man-Whore
51-65 Old Lech
66-75 Courtly Catamite
76-85 Outlandish Drag Queen
86-90 Proud Eunuch
91-92 Aging Roue
93-94 Kept Man
95-98 Cougar on the Prowl
99-100 Dungeon Master

A courtly catamite will resemble a regular courtier, a dungeon master may be mistaken for a torturer or executioner, the

...

I don't see how this helps with the whole "sex with fiends" thing


My name is Ed, and I approve of this thread!


And I thought that this thread had long ago burnt out all of its entertainment value. RESURGE!

________________________________________

In other news, frightening speculation now swarms that Brian E. Harris might actually be the Hulkurion, or vice versa.


ShinHakkaider wrote:
Set wrote:

As was said to 3.X supporters before Paizo announced Pathfinder, 'Nobody can take your books and rules away from you. Nobody is coming to your house and making you switch to the new edition at gunpoint.'

I know one of my biggest anxieties upon trying 4E and discovering that I didnt care for it was that my pool of 3.5 players might dry up as people wanted to play the newest edition.

It was literally the first time in over 27 years that I was considering leaving the hobby. At first it seemed that my fears were realized. I was the only person running a 3.5 game at our local meetups. The 4E people and organizers of the meetup were acting like complete douches deriding 3x at every given opportunity even though I was respectful of preference I found myself having to defend my choice of game on more than one occaaision.

Then Pathfinder was announced and the 3.5 base (well some of them) were energized again. Now I'm running a game at least once a month sometimes twice when schedule permits. If I had the time I'd run more.

*grinding teeth in forced smile*

I love that you have found people to play with. But if you have found people who want to play PF, you have not found people wanting to play 3.5. PF is not 3.5. Very similar? Yes. The same thing? No.

I hope you and your players have many years of playing your game of choice.

*Must not do '300' foot-chest "This is PF!", damn, failed will save*

Dark Archive

KaeYoss wrote:
Kevin Andrew Murphy wrote:
even those kinky dominatrix erinyes devils.

You're talking about 4e, so that's "Those succubus devils".

However, I like your batty zoo concept and would love to subscribe to your newsletter.

We are demons thank you very much, being called a stuck up prudish devil is a vile insult indeed sir.


I really hate the term 'nerdrage'...as it is more often than not used more to dismiss a person with a little insult thrown on. So using the word nerdrage really just incites things...so let not descibed this as nerdrage. How does it really help?

The problem with the ad( the one with views on all edition of the game) was it was insulting because that is how we gamers have been insulted more often than not. Sure we can laugh at them....because of that one guy...or that one group...but gamers in general are not nerd or geeks(whatever is a nerd or geek...except as label put on people that other people want to belittle to make themselves feel better...generaly find in schools and adults who never left their school days). But you'll find that 'one guy or group' in any fanship...socialy ineptude really is not limited to one area. Heck most gamers I know are very social...though I think that is because MMO are drawing of the people with social issues.

So what was the point of the ad? I think it was to show 4e was better than any of the other editions definitly...but they were keeping what it would be under tight wraps. Probably because they knew they would be outrage...or critism of it...so they waited as long as they could. But they still had to get people psych for it. The only way they could advertise it really is too point out what was wrong with the game a vague promise of making it better. It was a very negative type of advertisement...that created alot of bad feelings in people probably on both sides. Because that is what negative campaign does with something of this kind.

It was a very bad move by WotC and shows a lack of reading their fan base. The people who did 3rd ed knew better...they showed us why 3rd was better than 2nd ed.

Do I hate WotC...not really but with the stuff they pulled at the end of 3.5 I don't trust them. The ad campaign just made me trust them less. And right now I see them doing exactly the same kind of things they did at the end of 3.5 that they are doing now. Do I want to see them fail...yes...not because I am vindictive(really what harm did they cause me?) but because I think bad bussiness like theirs should fail...it is like she who shalt not be named is back in charge.


pres man wrote:

*grinding teeth in forced smile*

I love that you have found people to play with. But if you have found people who want to play PF, you have not found people wanting to play 3.5. PF is not 3.5. Very similar? Yes. The same thing? No.

I hope you and your players have many years of playing your game of choice.

*Must not do '300' foot-chest "This is PF!", damn, failed will save*

You keep saying that...and really I don't understand why you say that. Every 3.5 game my group played was converted over to Pathfinder...we are playing pretty much by just dropping whatever into Pathfinde with only slight modification...or none at all. It is working fine. So how is it not 3.5? True it is not exactly like it...but you can use in 3.5 system just fine.

So I ask...why do you think it is not 3.5? Not trying to start a flame war here and it is your opinion so it not like I am going to argue it...just curous on what you are seeing here.


John Kretzer wrote:

You keep saying that...and really I don't understand why you say that. Every 3.5 game my group played was converted over to Pathfinder...we are playing pretty much by just dropping whatever into Pathfinde with only slight modification...or none at all. It is working fine. So how is it not 3.5? True it is not exactly like it...but you can use in 3.5 system just fine.

So I ask...why do you think it is not 3.5? Not trying to start a flame war here and it is your opinion so it not like I am going to argue it...just curous on what you are seeing here.

PF is as much 3.5 as 3.5 is 3e.

3.5 was the key to keeping 3e thriving as PF is the key to keep 3.5 thriving.

Sorry, PF is not 3.5, 3.5 is not 3e. 3.5 killed 3e and took its place , likewise PF hopes to kill 3.5 and take its place (and has pretty much succeeded).

Why do I keep pointing this out? Because I prefer clarity. I prefer to let people know that if they plan to sit at my 3.5 table, that their PF core book is not going to be enough to game there. Likewise, I prefer to let 3.5 players know that if they want to sit at a PF table, their 3.5 core books aren't going to cut it either. I dislike someone saying PF is 3.5 and then causing confusion for gamers who try to join games.

Consider, if you went to a game at a local game story and it had been advertised to be PF. You get there with your PF game books, only to find out they are actually play 3e (not even 3.5). Would that give a little bit of frustration? I think if we are honest with ourselves we would agree it would. Does that mean you couldn't eventually tweak your character enough to play in the system? Sure you could, as I said they are closely related, but it is not the same system. Saying it is just creates unnecessary confusion.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
pres man wrote:
PF is not 3.5.

Just like how 4E isn't D&D?

PF is houseruled 3.5, as 3.5 was houseruled 3E.


Dark_Mistress wrote:
KaeYoss wrote:
Kevin Andrew Murphy wrote:
even those kinky dominatrix erinyes devils.

You're talking about 4e, so that's "Those succubus devils".

However, I like your batty zoo concept and would love to subscribe to your newsletter.

We are demons thank you very much, being called a stuck up prudish devil is a vile insult indeed sir.

Hey, you're preaching to the dark choir. I only repeat what those guys say. You know I wouldn't insult by saying you were lawful!


John Kretzer wrote:

I really hate the term 'nerdrage'...as it is more often than not used more to dismiss a person with a little insult thrown on. So using the word nerdrage really just incites things...so let not descibed this as nerdrage. How does it really help?

Hey, it's only an insult if it is used on them! When we complain, we're imagining things.

(For the record: I didn't even know it could be used in a non-insulting way)


John Kretzer wrote:
Do I want to see them fail...yes...not because I am vindictive(really what harm did they cause me?) but because I think bad business like theirs should fail...and thier talent distributed to other gaming development houses

FTFY

I would rather D&D as a brand be left to Hasbro's devices to market it as they wish even if it means ditching its TTRPG components all together and let those people working on the line move to other companies to develop new games or other supplimental products.

\I <3 waffle's tangents.

I wonder where Dangerous Journies ends up on this spectrum?

I see that there is no mention of other non D&D games so clearly we are still talking a parallel to the Reformation or Catholic/ Orthodox split and attempts at reconsiliation rather than some far reaching eccuminical unification of the hobby en masse. Not that history really shows either approach being sucessful at bridging those kinds of divisons mind you.

\<3 waffles


@pres man: Ok I understand. I can see your point. And even agree to it to a a degree. Though I sometimes think you harp on it too much. But now atleast I understand where you are coming from. Usualyy I denote games as 3.5 or 3.5/Pathdinder and Pathfinder.

@Dragonsong: I don't get what you fixed? If that is what FTFY means.

But really WotC spread their talent around anyway with their yearly firings...so I really don't see it as much of a issue. But that would be also a nice theng to see.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
pres man wrote:


Consider, if you went to a game at a local game story and it had been advertised to be PF. You get there with your PF game books, only to find out they are actually play 3e (not even 3.5). Would that give a little bit of frustration? I think if we are honest with ourselves we would agree it would. Does that mean you couldn't eventually tweak your character enough to play in the system? Sure you could, as I said they are closely related, but it is not the same system. Saying it is just creates unnecessary confusion.

Consider, if it had been advertised at be 3.5. And you showed up only to find out that they have a binder of houserules they expected you to follow.

Of course you would be frustrated. But the frustration is not because the systems are different. The frustration is because of poor communication.

You're basically saying that because I told you the wrong frequency, I'm no longer using a radio to talk to you.

Dark Archive

TriOmegaZero wrote:
pres man wrote:


Consider, if you went to a game at a local game story and it had been advertised to be PF. You get there with your PF game books, only to find out they are actually play 3e (not even 3.5). Would that give a little bit of frustration? I think if we are honest with ourselves we would agree it would. Does that mean you couldn't eventually tweak your character enough to play in the system? Sure you could, as I said they are closely related, but it is not the same system. Saying it is just creates unnecessary confusion.

Consider, if it had been advertised at be 3.5. And you showed up only to find out that they have a binder of houserules they expected you to follow.

Of course you would be frustrated. But the frustration is not because the systems are different. The frustration is because of poor communication.

First, Hey TOZ =)

Second, one guy, who's known for being GM in my group recently said that he was going to be starting another PRPG game. And I was excited. More gaming for me. Then he said he had some house-rules, and I thought to myself "okay, i wonder what he'll do". When I finally get the document in my email, it was 89 pages long. It was not just house rules, but blatant changes to the system. Guess how I felt? I simply told him that I was "bowing out" of that game (trying to be as civil as possible, while holding back my urge to 'hulk out'). He was confused, because I'm a very loyal person, and love gaming with that group. The only way I could think of to explain it to him was to say, "I'm really only interested in playing PRPG, and your game is too much of a departure from that for my taste."

I'm still playing in the other bi-weekly game (they're both bi-weekly, so we theoretically get one game a week).

That being said. When 4E was first announced, I was kinda excited. As I saw previews of actual mechanics, I thought "whoa, pretty cool". Then the advertising came, and then ddi, then i kept waiting for the vtt, and it never came, then the pdf's got pulled, and they just lost me as a customer. (good thing I bought the OD&D pdf's before they went to digital oblivion)

For the longest time, I refused to have anything to do with 4E. Eventually, I got curious. I eventually played a couple games. I discovered that I don't really care for it. I prefer PRPG. I've played both, I like what I like based on that.

I keep hoping WotC decides to put PDFs back up. Not going to hold my breath though.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
pres man wrote:


Consider, if you went to a game at a local game story and it had been advertised to be PF. You get there with your PF game books, only to find out they are actually play 3e (not even 3.5). Would that give a little bit of frustration? I think if we are honest with ourselves we would agree it would. Does that mean you couldn't eventually tweak your character enough to play in the system? Sure you could, as I said they are closely related, but it is not the same system. Saying it is just creates unnecessary confusion.

Consider, if it had been advertised at be 3.5. And you showed up only to find out that they have a binder of houserules they expected you to follow.

Of course you would be frustrated. But the frustration is not because the systems are different. The frustration is because of poor communication.

You're basically saying that because I told you the wrong frequency, I'm no longer using a radio to talk to you.

Actualy what is he saying is that calling Pathfinder 3.5 or vice a versa is bad communication. That is his whole point and his frustration.

I don't mean to put words in pres man mouth...but that is atleast what I am getting from him. If I am wrong than I am sorry.


John Kretzer wrote:
I really hate the term 'nerdrage'...as it is more often than not used more to dismiss a person with a little insult thrown on. So using the word nerdrage really just incites things...so let not descibed this as nerdrage. How does it really help?

Well, I mean, yeah. That's kind of the point.

The rest of this post was basically a rehashing of points I've already addressed.


Scott Betts wrote:
John Kretzer wrote:
I really hate the term 'nerdrage'...as it is more often than not used more to dismiss a person with a little insult thrown on. So using the word nerdrage really just incites things...so let not descibed this as nerdrage. How does it really help?

Well, I mean, yeah. That's kind of the point.

The rest of this post was basically a rehashing of points I've already addressed.

So what you are saying is that no other opinion but yours can be valid...or based in anything else besides irrational emotion? That there is a Right opinion...and a Wrong opinion.

Yes you have poorly addressed them...

Also want to bring up the 1st clip...you do know that is historicaly inaccurate...D&D minis existed for years before 1978. So 2nd ed did not 'fix' that problem...and 4th ed did not 'fix' this problem(as those punchout existed well before than)...it was a situration that has nothing to do with what edition of the game you are playing. So the ad itself is dishonest.

Also from that ad...I can definitly see why somebody who has never used minis might think it is just a mini game...because obviously you need them to play it...because look at those miserable 1st ed player and how confused they were...thanbk god for minis.

651 to 700 of 1,627 << first < prev | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / Mearls pleading for unity All Messageboards