Mearls pleading for unity


Gamer Life General Discussion

101 to 150 of 1,627 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Sebastian wrote:

Also agreed on D&D being only a brand. That struck me as part of Mike's point too, which is why I was reading as a euology for the name, not for the game.

If Mike is smart, 6th edition will be the last. :D


TriOmegaZero wrote:
I will never play a 4E game because I played it and didn't enjoy it. :P

It is highly unlikely that I will play another 4e game, because I played a few and didn't really enjoy them.

Also, edition wars are ridiculous. Seriously? Going to beat up some 10 year olds for liking Monopoly over Candyland? Liking Nintendo over Playstation? Enjoying Nascar over any real sport? Get over it, and play what you like.


Dark_Mistress wrote:

Those damn videogame kids and their new fangled stuff can get the hell off my lawn. :)

Pff. *Casts silencega at Dark_Mistress*


As one of the "old timers" of the hobby I find Mikes blog entertaining...
But...
There has and most likely never will be unity in the hobby.
The Hobbyists fractured into Role-players and Roll-players right after the game first went to press. It fractured even more right after the first RPG was created by a rival company, it will continue to fracture in this manner. Look at all the factions that are in the hobby now.

  • Grey beards
  • young bloods
  • 1Es
  • 2Es
  • 3Es
  • 4Es
  • Pathfinders
  • White Wolfers
  • Gurpies
  • Palladiumites
  • Fateies
  • Chaosites
  • Onliners
  • Offliners
  • Role-players
  • Roll-players
  • Rules lawyers
  • Munchkins
  • Hardcores
  • Casuals
  • Fixers
  • tweakers
  • Optimizers
  • inclusionists
  • exclusionsts

There are others I just cannot think of their names at the moment...
And most of us belong to more than one of those factions (even if we really do not want to admit it to ourselves). And many of those factions have sub-factions of their own (Palladiumites are divided between the Cabal and the Defenders for example...)

hmmm I had a point when I started this post...
I seem to have fogotten it along the way...
Well any way make of this what you will.


Chris Mortika wrote:

cibet44, thank you for posting that.

I am saddened that even a call to recognize the connections and shared history of all of the iterations of the D&D game, provokes that kind of hostility.

+1,000,000


Damian Magecraft wrote:

As one of the "old timers" of the hobby I find Mikes blog entertaining...

But...
There has and most likely never will be unity...

Unity is always present, it only has to be recognized. It's a matter of perspective.

Dark Archive

Dark_Mistress wrote:
xxx It would be a truly epic battle of geekdom, the streets would run rainbow colored with dice.

Oh! Caltrops!!!

Dark Archive

Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Why they don't just re-release PDFs, tied to a specific DDI account is beyond me. Even if you only get a few old-school gamers to sign up for PDF access, that's more eyeballs actually looking at 4e.

OK, omit the 3e PDFs, or maybe the non-setting specific stuff. Keep the FR and Eberron ones out there, along with all the 1e and 2e. Support your 4e settings, appease some of the older edition fans, don't provide roundabout support to Pathfinder, and get more eyeballs on DDI - how can they not see this as a win-win-win-win scenario? What IP lawyer idiot is stopping them from doing this?


I just don't get what Mearls' post accomplishes or even what it asks people to do. It seems an expression of a sentiment, but empty of anything concrete. I like MM, even if I don't like his edition, and I've read him with profit and entertainment. But this editorial or whatever you want to call it seemed relatively vapid and even sad. Maybe Sebastian is right.

With no old pdfs and no more minis, what does Wotci sell that would attract my business? Dungeon tiles? Well, maybe if they have some that specifically fit what I am looking for, but all things being equal, I'd rather support a company that is doing more for me than Wotci, and one that hasn't done anything to cause my bile ducts to back up in the past.


Mairkurion {tm} wrote:

I just don't get what Mearls' post accomplishes or even what it asks people to do. It seems an expression of a sentiment, but empty of anything concrete. I like MM, even if I don't like his edition, and I've read him with profit and entertainment. But this editorial or whatever you want to call it seemed relatively vapid and even sad. Maybe Sebastian is right.

With no old pdfs and no more minis, what does Wotci sell that would attract my business? Dungeon tiles? Well, maybe if they have some that specifically fit what I am looking for, but all things being equal, I'd rather support a company that is doing more for me than Wotci, and one that hasn't done anything to cause my bile ducts to back up in the past.

The article is the first in a series that is supposed to discuss the past and future of Dungeons and Dragons. I don't think he's trying to sell you on anything, just giving a basis for the articles to come. It's a fluff piece, seemingly there just for entertainment value. I remember when Dragon magazine regularly had stuff like that...


ghettowedge wrote:


The article is the first in a series that is supposed to discuss the past and future of Dungeons and Dragons. I don't think he's trying to sell you on anything, just giving a basis for the articles to come. It's a fluff piece, seemingly there just for entertainment value. I remember when Dragon magazine regularly had stuff like that...

Hey, GW. At the risk of being argumentative, shouldn't such an article sell me on how what they're doing as taking the good stuff of the past into the future? On how it has potential to bring all players together, or how it has good stuff to offer all players? I mean, somehow the past and future of the game should hook up with the unity thing...and of course he should be trying to sell me/other scattered former customers something! I don't know, it was getting a lot of buzz, but it just struck me as odd on almost every level. Somehow, my expectations were raised and then...


You know, when I first read that article, I thought it was trying to say "Hey, fans of older editions! We're NOT going to alienate you, so why don't you listen to what we have to say (presumably in some future articles)?"

But hearing you put it that way, Mairkurion, I'm starting to wonder. Maybe the point was simply "Let's stop being jerks, and stop fighting each other."


So, the second article in Mearls' Legends and Lore series was posted today.

I have some thoughts on it, but I realize my kneejerk reaction might smack of tinfoil hat. So, I want to hear what others think of it before I say anything.


Power Word Unzip wrote:

So, the second article in Mearls' Legends and Lore series was posted today.

I have some thoughts on it, but I realize my kneejerk reaction might smack of tinfoil hat. So, I want to hear what others think of it before I say anything.

Truthfully? My first thought was "this looks like early design work on a new edition."

!!


Dayyum. Indeed, canvassing for future design decisions is what it sounds like.

Putting the first article with this one makes it sound more like, "Hey, we all play the same game, we just don't agree on mechanics. I know! Let's have a discussion about mechanics and see what people might want to buy in the future more than they want to buy 4e!"


bugleyman wrote:
Power Word Unzip wrote:

So, the second article in Mearls' Legends and Lore series was posted today.

I have some thoughts on it, but I realize my kneejerk reaction might smack of tinfoil hat. So, I want to hear what others think of it before I say anything.

Truthfully? My first thought was "this looks like early design work on a new edition."

!!

yeah thats how it reads to me as well...

well that and Mearls would make a good politician never saw some one waffle that hard since Clinton.


Hmmm.

Just what is going on here?


bugleyman wrote:


Truthfully? My first thought was "this looks like early design work on a new edition."

!!

5th Edition is on the way!


FWIW, I voted for greater GM control, but that's me.

I don't wanna jump on the edition-change bandwagon just yet. But is Mearls perhaps putting out feelers for player input as a prelude to a rules supplement of some sort that could impact how 4E is played, and perhaps open up some new options while addressing common gripes about its departure from the game's roots?

EDIT: And if there isn't an edition change, or alteration to the design philosophy, or reimagining of the rules, then why even ask this question? Tinfoil hat brain says this is step 1 of some elaborate mathematical proof to demonstrate that 4E is just fine as it is, like a carefully worded political poll... but that could be the crazy talking.

This keeps getting weirder.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Kain Darkwind wrote:
Also, edition wars are ridiculous. Seriously? Going to beat up some 10 year olds for liking Monopoly over Candyland? Liking Nintendo over Playstation? Enjoying Nascar over any real sport? Get over it, and play what you like.

Playstation is an upstart with no cred. You want a console war, Nintendo vs Sega! And we won! :P


Power Word Unzip wrote:

FWIW, I voted for greater GM control, but that's me.

I don't wanna jump on the edition-change bandwagon just yet. But is Mearls perhaps putting out feelers for player input as a prelude to a rules supplement of some sort that could impact how 4E is played, and perhaps open up some new options while addressing common gripes about its departure from the game's roots?

EDIT: And if there isn't an edition change, or alteration to the design philosophy, or reimagining of the rules, then why even ask this question? Tinfoil hat brain says this is step 1 of some elaborate mathematical proof to demonstrate that 4E is just fine as it is, like a carefully worded political poll... but that could be the crazy talking.

This keeps getting weirder.

We-he-hell!!! A new smokin' buddy! Ooo, looks like you got a head start! ;-)


Puff the Magic Dragon wrote:
Power Word Unzip wrote:

FWIW, I voted for greater GM control, but that's me.

I don't wanna jump on the edition-change bandwagon just yet. But is Mearls perhaps putting out feelers for player input as a prelude to a rules supplement of some sort that could impact how 4E is played, and perhaps open up some new options while addressing common gripes about its departure from the game's roots?

EDIT: And if there isn't an edition change, or alteration to the design philosophy, or reimagining of the rules, then why even ask this question? Tinfoil hat brain says this is step 1 of some elaborate mathematical proof to demonstrate that 4E is just fine as it is, like a carefully worded political poll... but that could be the crazy talking.

This keeps getting weirder.

We-he-hell!!! A new smokin' buddy! Ooo, looks like you got a head start! ;-)

I'LL THANK YOU TO LEAVE MY LIFE CHOICES OUT OF THIS, SIR. ;D


Power Word Unzip wrote:

FWIW, I voted for greater GM control, but that's me.

I don't wanna jump on the edition-change bandwagon just yet. But is Mearls perhaps putting out feelers for player input as a prelude to a rules supplement of some sort that could impact how 4E is played,

Its been my experience in the past, with WotC, that something like that for them is called an edition change.

Contributor

I think the keystone of the article is this:

Mike Mearls wrote:
The counter is that the rule is more complex than it needs to be, because it has to create a foolproof method for determining cover without the use of common sense or description. When players can control rules, there’s a natural tendency to find ways to break them. In contrast, with the DM serving as impartial referee, you can write a simple rule that’s easy to learn and easy to apply. You don’t have to worry about strange corner cases because the DM—as part of making the judgment call required to determine cover—can simple cast aside absurd results.

This is the nub of my main problems with 4e, usually summed up by some min-maxer orgasmically squealing about how "The fluff doesn't matter!" and "You can always re-fluff it!"

How I loathe the term "fluff" and wish it to the darkest depths of Orcus's fleshy nether regions, never to be seen again. For me, the "fluff" is the "crunch," which is to say, whatever the description of a creature or spell says it is, that should be the major rule when adjudicating it, and the mechanics placed alongside it are just there to help model that, and when they fail, they should be tossed out or supplemented.

In other words, as a DM I want to use common sense and description, not some arcane chess variation with absurd loopholes that bears little resemblance to reality.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Power Word Unzip wrote:

So, the second article in Mearls' Legends and Lore series was posted today.

I have some thoughts on it, but I realize my kneejerk reaction might smack of tinfoil hat. So, I want to hear what others think of it before I say anything.

<facepalm>

Oh, no. This doesn't look like someone opening a dialog, this looks like the start of a survey... and a bad survey, at that.

Please forgive me if I lapse into management-speak for a bit, but this is something I've been studying lately (in ITIL Foundation training and other IT management courses, if you must know). Customer surveys are one of the primary ways an organization gathers data on customer satisfaction and expectations, so that management can analyze trends and make decisions to develop/improve products/services. However, for a survey to provide useful data for said analysis, it needs to be more than a series of binary questions.

A good survey will have the survey-takers grade the questions on a continuum (usually a 5-10 point scale, depending on how finely you want to differentiate the data), with the option of "not applicable" or "no preference." A good survey will include questions on how the takers use the product/service (frequency of use, use of related products/services, etc.). A good survey will also ask the takers some open-ended questions like "what do you think is the best part of the product/service," "what do you think is the worst part," "if you could make only one change to the product/service, what would it be and why," etc. A survey that by design (i.e., simple binary questions, no context, no open-ended questions) gathers limited data will only provide limited (or worse, misleading) guidance for decisions.

[obligatory Star Wars quote]"I've got a bad feeling about this."[/obligatory Star Wars quote] I'm worried that this veiwing of the market through a soda straw will lead WotC to make even more radical changes away from the roots of D&D. Most of the big changes in 4e did come from complaints about 3.x, after all: "some classes are too powerful/weak" -> classes are pretty much the same (although each has a couple of areas they're better than others); "I don't like Vancian casting" -> abilities are now at will, per encounter, or per day; etc.

Silver Crusade

TriOmegaZero wrote:
Kain Darkwind wrote:
Also, edition wars are ridiculous. Seriously? Going to beat up some 10 year olds for liking Monopoly over Candyland? Liking Nintendo over Playstation? Enjoying Nascar over any real sport? Get over it, and play what you like.
Playstation is an upstart with no cred. You want a console war, Nintendo vs Sega! And we won! :P

Poor, poor Dreamcast. Sega only had themselve to blame for that though...

Silver Crusade

I was thinking just this morning about how WotC's aggressive release schedule for 4th Edition left it with little in the way of substantial new material to release less than three years after its launch. Essentials is the earliest ".5" edition yet, unless you count the first 3 supplements the ".5" edition of OD&D (some do). Yeah, the Essentials line isn't doing it for me, or a lot of others either. It's time for a new edition, already. Otherwise, what's the point of the little poll at the bottom of the post? The 4E-Pathfinder War isn't over yet. I'm afraid to see what new hostilities will brew up from this development.


Mikaze wrote:
Poor, poor Dreamcast. Sega only had themselve to blame for that though...

Excellent hardware with a near total absence of quality games.

After processing the latest installment of the Mearls thing, I have to support the idea of opening a dialog with players. I don't care if it's for a new edition or not, since I'm not going to buy into content that doesn't offer full-color maps in a digital format. But good designers ask questions like he is asking, at all times, whether or not a new product is on the horizon.

Of course, it is far wiser to reserve judgment until we see what he's driving at.


Shadewest wrote:
The 4E-Pathfinder War isn't over yet. I'm afraid to see what new hostilities will brew up from this development.

If you see it as a war I am afraid you have bought into a popular fallacy.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Evil Lincoln wrote:
Mikaze wrote:
Poor, poor Dreamcast. Sega only had themselve to blame for that though...
Excellent hardware with a near total absence of quality games.

Like 4E? :)

Silver Crusade

Evil Lincoln wrote:
Mikaze wrote:
Poor, poor Dreamcast. Sega only had themselve to blame for that though...
Excellent hardware with a near total absence of quality games.

They had 'em, but just like during the Saturn days they refused to bring many of them to America (seriously, they gave us one third of Shining Force 3...).*

The big thing, beyond that and all the bad rep they built up with the 32X and the Saturn was that it was the most pirate friendly console ever. Broadband had taken off, and people were just burning games to discs and popping them in, no modding required. That pretty much chased any interested developers away from the system... :(

At least we got Jet Set Radio, Powerstone, Resident Evil: Code Veronica, Berserk, Phantasy Star Online and Soul Calibur out of it before it keeled over.

On the other hand it also gave us Seaman....

*Seriously, look up Bernie Stolar and "RPGs don't sell". Your head will explode with the sheer WTF.

Silver Crusade

Evil Lincoln wrote:
Shadewest wrote:
The 4E-Pathfinder War isn't over yet. I'm afraid to see what new hostilities will brew up from this development.
If you see it as a war I am afraid you have bought into a popular fallacy.

I haven't bought into anything but the Pathfinder RPG line. Although, you're right in a way. I'm giving legitimacy to the rhetoric. Some people do see it that way, though, and a 5th Edition is going to add a new faction for those who do. I'm saying that watching the nerd rage will be fun. Pass the popcorn.


If anybody is surprised 5th edition is coming...there are blind...deaf and don't learn from the past. I saw the signes a year ago. And my predication(of them annoucing 5th ed in a year) seems to be on track.


John Kretzer wrote:
If anybody is surprised 5th edition is coming...there are blind...deaf and don't learn from the past. I saw the signes a year ago. And my predication(of them annoucing 5th ed in a year) seems to be on track.

Nah it wont be called 5e they will call it 4.5 or some other nonsense.


Damian Magecraft wrote:
John Kretzer wrote:
If anybody is surprised 5th edition is coming...there are blind...deaf and don't learn from the past. I saw the signes a year ago. And my predication(of them annoucing 5th ed in a year) seems to be on track.
Nah it wont be called 5e they will call it 4.5 or some other nonsense.

1) I think that was the Essentials.

2)There is too much bad blood with 4th ed.

3) I think 5th edition will be radicle different from 4th ed....rather they go back or try something completely different is debatable...but I think they are tired of 4th ed themselves.

But that is pure speculation...and a guess. You maybe right.


"I never hated the playa's, I just hated the game...yo"

Seriously.

I refused to transition from 2ED to 3RD, and so 4TH was waaaaay out of the question. Was never against anyone else going there, more the merrier, just none of that stuff was 'for me'.

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

So, he's talking honestly about 4e's design decisions, as though those decisions have both pros and cons and the 3e crowd isn't just plain wrong? I don't understand why the reactions to this should be so mixed or uncertain; I think it's pretty cool.

I think there's a tendency to use "5th edition" as a dirty word, and I think the reason for that is the implication that all the good things about 4e will be abandoned and everyone who has liked or invested in 4e will be screwed over.

Obviously, WoTC is going to keep releasing stuff for the D&D brand, at least for now (I think it's a little silly to imply that D&D is at the end of its rope and Wizards knows it). What they come out with next may well be described by some as "5th edition", and it may (I hope) demonstrate some genuinely novel game design, but I don't think they're going to tear up the groundwork that they laid with 4e.

The Exchange Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6

I'm predicting Advanced Dungeons and Dragons for a hypothetical new edition. Other folks too.

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

Kevin Andrew Murphy wrote:

I think the keystone of the article is this:

Mike Mearls wrote:
The counter is that the rule is more complex than it needs to be, because it has to create a foolproof method for determining cover without the use of common sense or description. When players can control rules, there’s a natural tendency to find ways to break them. In contrast, with the DM serving as impartial referee, you can write a simple rule that’s easy to learn and easy to apply. You don’t have to worry about strange corner cases because the DM—as part of making the judgment call required to determine cover—can simple cast aside absurd results.

This is the nub of my main problems with 4e, usually summed up by some min-maxer orgasmically squealing about how "The fluff doesn't matter!" and "You can always re-fluff it!"

How I loathe the term "fluff" and wish it to the darkest depths of Orcus's fleshy nether regions, never to be seen again. For me, the "fluff" is the "crunch," which is to say, whatever the description of a creature or spell says it is, that should be the major rule when adjudicating it, and the mechanics placed alongside it are just there to help model that, and when they fail, they should be tossed out or supplemented.

In other words, as a DM I want to use common sense and description, not some arcane chess variation with absurd loopholes that bears little resemblance to reality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNS_Theory *

That's cool. I'm also a simulationist first and foremost. I'm with you there; the relationship between "fluff" and "crunch" is a huge part of what makes the game worthwhile to me. But I don't see why your tone needs to be so scornful of gamists or narrativists. Being able to, say, surf around on a giant flying greatsword is also pretty cool in its own way.

*Actually, that article's definition of 'gamist' sounds really confrontational to me; you don't have to be an "I win, you lose" minmaxer to be a gamist. You just have to be the kind of person who can enjoy a game even if there's little or no story


Russ Taylor wrote:
I'm predicting Advanced Dungeons and Dragons for a hypothetical new edition. Other folks too.

I could really see that...and that would a complete lack of understanding to the history of the game it would be funny...and I might not buy it just because of it.


Kevin Andrew Murphy wrote:


This is the nub of my main problems with 4e, usually summed up by some min-maxer orgasmically squealing about how "The fluff doesn't matter!" and "You can always re-fluff it!"

How I loathe the term "fluff" and wish it to the darkest depths of Orcus's fleshy nether regions, never to be seen again. For me, the "fluff" is the "crunch," which is to say, whatever the description of a creature or spell says it is, that should be the major rule when adjudicating it, and the mechanics placed alongside it are just there to help model that, and when they fail, they should be tossed out or supplemented.

In other words, as a DM I want to use common sense and description, not some arcane chess variation with absurd loopholes that bears little resemblance to reality.

Hold up a moment.

1st:Why does it matter that the term is fluff. You could change it to sdrkldj, and it would still exist. It has to exist. People sometimes need such things for the sake of immersion. I think better written fluff can be crunch or at least show RAI. There have been times when the fluff and mechanics have not been written to work very well. That is an issue with designers, not the players, and I am not a min-maxer, but some fluff should definitely be mutable. It is really situational.
I don't play 4E, but your terms could equally apply to a good portion of 3.X and probably Pathfinder things if I choose to look hard enough. I have seen enough debates on the wotc boards when someone mistook the fluff for part of rules when doing so only made the rule not work as intended.


John Kretzer wrote:
If anybody is surprised 5th edition is coming...there are blind...deaf and don't learn from the past. I saw the signes a year ago. And my predication(of them annoucing 5th ed in a year) seems to be on track.

I so doubt that. See the minute they announce 5th edition then they have a 'dead' game. Hey it happens - they have been here before...but there is a big difference this time. The DDI, they announce 5th edition and suddenly no one needs a DDI subscription for new content...and they can say bye, bye, to all that wonderful free money that pours in every month. The nerd rage from the announcment would sound like mouse clicks as a huge chunk of their fan base expressed their disapproval by canceling their subscription. Now maybe, just maybe, they'd go with that if they could guarantee that everyone that plays Pathfinder would all suddenly abandon Paizo and come running back to them (and they figured they could win their 4th edition customers back as well)...but that ship has sailed and they know it.

Is the publishing schedule lighter? It sure is - but the DDI is not lighter...oh no, there they keep announcing new columns and promising new features. Seems to me that WotCs real fear is they loose their subscriber base for the DDI 'cause that seems to be whats paying the bills around there these days. This is probably the core reason the publishing schedule is suddenly getting a lot lighter. Every previous edition could keep pumping out books until it stopped being profitable amd then they go on a year hiatus and bring out a new edition at the end, but not this time. This time they need to keep us paying that monthly subscription and to do that they need to keep our attention. Whats happened is that they have realized that at this later stage in the edition they can't just keep pouring on new options - we are drowning in them.

So now they have to choose - the book publishing sector or the DDI. They've chosen the DDI and everything that happened to have been canceled in the book publishing side will turn into Dragon articles to try and keep feeding its insatiable appetite.

I actually don't think there will ever be a real 5th edition. Not in the classic manner, to dangerous to the Goose that lays the Golden Eggs. Instead we'll likely get some kind of evolving rules set - something that won't have a clear break so as avoid the danger of the fan base signing off. WotC has always been clear that nothing in the rules set is particularly sacrosanct. If its decided that 3.5/4Es grid based cover determination (to use Mearl's last article as an example) is not the best way to determine cover and DM fiat would be better then we'd simply get an update to the rules.

The exception is if the fan base becomes so tired of the current version of D&D that they abandon the DDI - then all bets are off as to what they'll do...but that is likely many years off.

You mention Essentials was 4.5 and there has been some big debate on whether or not that is true because of backward compatibility and the fact that very few rules actually changed at the time of Essentials release...it was more a compilation of all the rule changes that had taken place over the years since the game was released. Expect this model to continue - in three our four years another compilation comes out and it consists of all the rules that have changed since Essentials was released, and this process simply continues for as long as WotC can possibly manage it so long as it means the subscription fees keep pouring in.

The thing is your looking at them as if they where still a publishing company but I don't think that is accurate any more - At this point I'd say they are an online content provider that happens to have a reasonably good publishing arm.


To those who think this means 5e:

It's 2011 already. 4e came 2008. That's three years. I don't think 4e will get as much time as 3e got. I also think it's not unlikely that this is kicking off development for 5e. Early stages, maybe, getting some basic info, but I wouldn't be surprised if they're already working on it. If they announced it next GenCon for the GenCon after that, I wouldn't be surprised at all.


KAM: "Crunch" is just styrofoam if it doesn't have any "Flavor."


Shadewest wrote:
I'm afraid to see what new hostilities will brew up from this development.

Except for people being rude and getting angry, "The 4E-Pathfinder War" seems to have brought many spoils of war in its train.

If it is so, long may it wage!

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

Companies competing with each other is fabulous for the hobby. :)

Fans getting angry at each other is not-so-fabulous for the hobby.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16, 2011 Top 32

I've said it before, they're setting the stage for a new edition and it will be computerized. Sure there will be a book or two, but the assumption will be a subscriber model with a virtual table top that takes the assumptions away from the players and DM and puts them into the hands of the computer. Hasbro is looking at print costs and saying "why bother?" when you can put everything online and control it. That's why no PDFs, that's why no more miniatures.


Russ Taylor wrote:
I'm predicting Advanced Dungeons and Dragons for a hypothetical new edition. Other folks too.

I'm throwing in my hat for Penultimate Dungeons and Dragons. ;-)


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Kain Darkwind wrote:
Also, edition wars are ridiculous. Seriously? Going to beat up some 10 year olds for liking Monopoly over Candyland? Liking Nintendo over Playstation? Enjoying Nascar over any real sport? Get over it, and play what you like.
Playstation is an upstart with no cred. You want a console war, Nintendo vs Sega! And we won! :P

For better or worse...yeah.

101 to 150 of 1,627 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / Mearls pleading for unity All Messageboards