Mearls pleading for unity


Gamer Life General Discussion

151 to 200 of 1,627 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Mikaze wrote:
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...

I still have and lovingly maintain my dreamcast. I still think it's an awesome system, and quite powerful, even for its age.


Mikaze wrote:
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.

Indeed, Japan's insular nature(to others: rampant racism/ethnocentrism) hurt Sega very, very badly. Which is weird because they were so open with their stuff back in the Master System and Genesis days. I would more blame this than the pirates, who were in many, many cases, the ONLY way you would *EVER* see some of the pirated games. YES, I know things are different nowadays when it comes to importing, but I guess you can call me a video gaming grognard as I have some old, bad memories of things that...went wrong...back in Chinatown back in the day.


Kvantum wrote:
IP lawyer idiot is stopping them from doing this?

I'm glad that I'm rebelling. :D


James Martin wrote:
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.

That is personally what I am afraid is going to happen. I don't like the idea because books can be used a lot more places than computers, and even if you use the computer to create and store character sheets, I still prefer to use books or at most pdfs on a laptop that doesn't have to connected to the internet to access information for actual play. It's not even the need for a computer that bothers me, it' s their push to make an active internet connection absolutely required to do anything that bothers me.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

I removed a pointless jab at industry figures and 4th edition in general.


sunshadow21 wrote:

That is personally what I am afraid is going to happen. I don't like the idea because books can be used a lot more places than computers, and even if you use the computer to create and store character sheets, I still prefer to use books or at most pdfs on a laptop that doesn't have to connected to the internet to access information for actual play. It's not even the need for a computer that bothers me, it' s their push to make an active internet connection absolutely required to do anything that bothers me.

I hate to be a luddite, but I agree with Sunshadow. This is a mis-use of the Internet. The Internet is the most powerful copy machine ever created, and it's books, and CDs where companies can make the most money with their content. A company uses their PDFs to sell their Hardcopies nowadays. That's the main reason why you have to reduce the price of the PDF, because the PDF is your main marketing tool. You get people to buy the PDF (or just download it in my case) and then produce the books later.

As an artist, on a Planet with an Internet, I can reach far more people by relinquishing control of the Content itself and controlling the containment that Content. As an artist that follows the Cobbler method, I can cobble together an adventure, release it for free on the Internet with the Copyheart and Creative Commons licenses (and OGL). On the Internet, my adventure becomes Energy ~ little 1s and 0s ~ that can be copied perfectly. Sure people will download it for free, but the people who really love it will pay for it (in donations) and increase it's value by creating derivative works with it (books, t.v., movies, other adventures).

What Hasbro is doing is transforming a machine made by many computers created to make perfect copies of anything into a tool used for consumption. Not to say that a lot of people haven't done that (Blizzard comes to mind). But to do it to Dungeons and Dragons will be a disaster. They are destroying Dungeons and Dragons value by doing this.

You can't control Energy, and that is what the Internet deals with. Hasbro is better served by using the old publishing model. You put D&D on books and you SELL books. Put it on the internet and making people pay for it, and eventually it will bite back at you.

Dungeons and Dragons, dead by the internet, who knew. I love the internet, I love digital, but when you treat it and the people who use it with respect it will never come back to bite you. The Internet is the best thing that has ever happened to Man -- both for the Publishing business and for Art's sake. When a company disrespects the people who use the internet, in all honesty they strike back and they reduce the value of your art, your content, everything you've worked for.

Hasbro doesn't know how to run a business on the Internet. It's that plain and simple.

Contributor

wraithstrike wrote:
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.

The problem with the term "fluff," as I have stated before in other threads and will no doubt restate later in yet more, is that it's a dismissive pejorative for the thing I love most and which I feel matter.

In writer's parlance, "fluff" is short for "marshmallow fluff," meaning airy-fairy nonsense, poppycock, tomfoolery, and all style but zero substance. It's one of the nastiest and certainly the most dismissive thing that can ever be said about a work of prose. It also wasn't chosen out of the blue. Whatever gamist decided on the terms "fluff" and "crunch," they did it deliberately on the idea that "fluff"=Baaaad! and "crunch"=Goooood!

That's why it matters whether something is called "fluff." It's a pejorative, and a nasty one at that. Calling it "flavor" is barely better. I prefer "narrative description" as that implies more of what I think the rules should actually be.

If you follow the logic of the narrative description, you generally won't produce inane results. Let's say, for example, we've got a famous scene from film and literature: the confrontation between the Wicked Witch of the West and Dorothy and her posse. The witch goes "Hey Scarecrow, would you like a little fire?" and does Produce Flame and lobs a ball of flame at him.

Now, in the film and the book, the Scarecrow is afraid of fire as he's made out of straw and is thus highly flammable. In the game? Let's assume the designer did some lazy design and just designated the Scarecrow as a construct and gave him regular construct traits, which not only takes no extra damage from fire but also has some variety of fire resistance. The witch is all "WTF?" and the GM is then telling the player to make her Knowledge Arcana rolls, which she aces, and he then informs her that due to the policies of her sister, the Wicked Witch of the East, the Munchkin farmers were mandated to treat all their scarecrows with alchemical flame retardant. However, constructs are all vulnerable to corrosion by the RAW so....

"So what you're saying," say's the Wicked Witch's player, "is that I need my green-faced Winkie mooks to release the rust monsters and those will dissolve not just the Tin Man but the Scarecrow too?"

Why yes. Following a slavish devotion to the RAW, that's exactly what he is saying.

As a GM, I think this is nonsense. I view the narrative description as superior to the stat block, and as such, I'm going to rule that the Scarecrow, the Sawhorse, Jack Pumpkinhead, the Patchwork Girl, and any other constructs made of highly flammable substances are going to take double damage from fire but are utterly immune to rust monsters as they are completely non-ferrous.

I'm fine with Narrativist conventions. If the Wicked Witch sets the Scarecrow on fire but then Dorothy immediately douses the flame because the Scarecrow has plot immunity, that's fine, and it's also fine if for the rest of the fight the Scarecrow is immune to fire because from a Simulationist perspective, that's perfectly logical because it's hard to set fire to wet straw.

But fireproof scarecrows because someone was too lazy to design a proper stat block? It may be "crunch" but it's broken.

Dark Archive

On the topic of fluff. I like the term fluff and I like fluff. fluff sounds cute and the creamy goodness that makes up fluff is good. So i see fluff as a positive term.


Dark_Mistress wrote:
On the topic of fluff. I like the term fluff and I like fluff. fluff sounds cute and the creamy goodness that makes up fluff is good. So i see fluff as a positive term.

Agreed. I can understand why Kevin dislikes the term - no one likes to hear a pejorative term appended to the very thing in which they specialize - but I don't think people at large think of "fluff" and "flavor" in that way when talking about gaming. At least, I don't, anyway. It's really just shorthand that's been in use for so long that it's hard to change the vernacular lexicon at this point.


Dark_Mistress wrote:
On the topic of fluff. I like the term fluff and I like fluff. fluff sounds cute and the creamy goodness that makes up fluff is good. So i see fluff as a positive term.

It doesn't really bother me either. Flavor is my forte, and that makes me a paid fluffer.

Er... Hold on...


First of all, I don't think of the word "fluff" as having a positive nor a negative connotation. Fluff is what it is, whether you like it or not. I think a lot of reviews of RPG books say things like "This book has great fluff!" or "It's mostly fluff, with only a little crunch; just the right balance for me!"

Second of all, the fireball scene Kevin described never occurred in the book. And in the movie, the line was "Here, Scarecrow! Want to play ball?"

Third of all, 3.X is a crunch-heavy game. Again, I'm not saying that as a positive nor a negative comment, just as a simple fact. So if a GM creates a creature in 3.X with a weakness to fire, (s)he must implement the rules for exactly what fire does to that creature. If the GM doesn't like it, then (s)he must improvise the effects of fire if a player thinks to use it. If the GM won't do either, then (s)he is not a very good 3.X GM, and ought to consider switching to a more rules-light system. But nothing in this example indicates to me that thinking of it as "fluff" causes the problem. The problem is that the GM's attitude is not a good match for the system.

EDIT: Okay, I re-read Kevin's post, and now I see that his comment was more in regard to 4E, not 3.X. I'll admit that I'm not qualified to argue about that, as I don't know squat about 4E. But I stand by my basic point. If a ridiculous rule results from the failure to pay attention to "fluff," then calling it something other than "fluff" will not fix the problem.


The Jade wrote:
Dark_Mistress wrote:
On the topic of fluff. I like the term fluff and I like fluff. fluff sounds cute and the creamy goodness that makes up fluff is good. So i see fluff as a positive term.

It doesn't really bother me either. Flavor is my forte, and that makes me a paid fluffer.

Er... Hold on...

Everyone has a price.

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

Aaron Bitman wrote:

But nothing in this example indicates to me that thinking of it as "fluff" causes the problem. The problem is that the GM's attitude is not a good match for the system.

It's not even that the GM isn't a good match for the system. In fact I'd say his attitude is an excellent match for the system; what it isn't a good match for is the attitude of the Wicked Witch's player.

I've known a lot of GMs who would rather come up with creative explanations for the rules than change them based on PC arguments. And there's nothing wrong with that. It might not be what Keven Andrew would personally do, but that doesn't make it wrong.


Kevin Andrew Murphy: I agree with you...I always considered fluff to be...negative. Though I perfer the term for this kinda stuff as lore.

But it is more of a pet peeve of mine and not something to get worked up if I see somebody to use it. I mean I know what they mean by it now.

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

(actually, I take back at least part of my theoretical defense of Wizard of Ozz GM; if the Scarcrow is vulnerable to rust monsters that means the DM is using the stats for an unmodified iron golem, and that's just dumb)

I personally love the terms "flavor" and "fluff", and also "mechanics" and "crunch"; if only because they allow me to conceptualize roleplaying games as systems of crunchy, mechanical gears and clockwork covered in a thick layer of fluffy, flavorful marshmellow sauce.

The ladylove and I were out to dinner at a new place a couple weeks ago and she admitted to almost commenting on the menu's "flavor text" (one of those italicized blurbs talking about the history of the restaurant). Can I officially say I've geekified her yet?


@Jeremy Mac Donald: You know you are right I did not consider the effect of DDI had on this. But those subsciption are not really free money...or even cheap money. I mean you have to hire computer programers to enter new data and rules into the Char gen. You have to have people to debug it, etc. Also the money spent on development is high.

And also are subsciptions really all that high? That they can't get fire their 4th ed fan base and replace them. Have to say I might have subscibed if they came out with DDI within 3rd ed days...as it could be a useful tool. So who know if they decide that if 5th ed appeals to all the people who left over 4th ed...and they can sell all of them DDI...I think they have no issue with doing this. They have done this before after all.

Though I admitt DDI might extend the timetable of them announcing plans for 5th ed from about 1 year to 2 years....though everthink that they have not come up the Vitural gaming table because they are coming out with 5th ed...so why pay the money to develope it twice when you can develope it once and use it to launch the new edition.

As I said this is pure speculation...thanks for throwing a monkey wrench in it.


Röne Bartön wrote:
The Jade wrote:
Dark_Mistress wrote:
On the topic of fluff. I like the term fluff and I like fluff. fluff sounds cute and the creamy goodness that makes up fluff is good. So i see fluff as a positive term.

It doesn't really bother me either. Flavor is my forte, and that makes me a paid fluffer.

Er... Hold on...

Everyone has a price.

I know I've spent too much time of Facebook when I reflexively search for the "like" option on someone's post here.

Contributor

Hydro wrote:
Aaron Bitman wrote:

But nothing in this example indicates to me that thinking of it as "fluff" causes the problem. The problem is that the GM's attitude is not a good match for the system.

It's not even that the GM isn't a good match for the system. In fact I'd say his attitude is an excellent match for the system; what it isn't a good match for is the attitude of the Wicked Witch's player.

I've known a lot of GMs who would rather come up with creative explanations for the rules than change them based on PC arguments. And there's nothing wrong with that. It might not be what Keven Andrew would personally do, but that doesn't make it wrong.

What's wrong with that is that it's no longer a roleplaying game at that point.

If I say I want to play a knight, I mean I want to wear armor, ride around on a horse with a sword and a lance, beat up black knights and giants, slay dragons, and have my squire clean my armor and curry my horse while I go read courtly love poems to my lady fair. If the GM tells me I can't do any of those things, that "knight" is just an arbitrary label and in fact the only thing I can do is hop two squares forward followed by one square on either side, possibly taking a member of the opposing team? That's not a roleplaying game. That's chess.

Similarly, if I'm playing a wicked witch, I expect that I should be able to fly around on my broomstick, and when I throw a ball of fire, it should do average damage to the lion, the girl and her little dog, double damage to the scarecrow, and probably no damage to the guy made out of tin because tin doesn't burn unless you get it exceedingly hot and I don't have a dragon handy. If the mechanics or "crunch" or stat blocks or whatever you want to call them don't follow this basic bit of common sense, they should be thrown out and new ones implemented, because it breaks immersion and verisimilitude to expect players to believe in a world where creatures made out of straw don't burn but can be dissolved by rust monsters.

Dark Archive

The Jade wrote:
Dark_Mistress wrote:
On the topic of fluff. I like the term fluff and I like fluff. fluff sounds cute and the creamy goodness that makes up fluff is good. So i see fluff as a positive term.

It doesn't really bother me either. Flavor is my forte, and that makes me a paid fluffer.

Er... Hold on...

Everyone has to start somewhere, don't be ashamed. Just go out and be the best damn fluffer you can be. :)

Dark Archive

Kevin Andrew Murphy wrote:
Hydro wrote:
Aaron Bitman wrote:

But nothing in this example indicates to me that thinking of it as "fluff" causes the problem. The problem is that the GM's attitude is not a good match for the system.

It's not even that the GM isn't a good match for the system. In fact I'd say his attitude is an excellent match for the system; what it isn't a good match for is the attitude of the Wicked Witch's player.

I've known a lot of GMs who would rather come up with creative explanations for the rules than change them based on PC arguments. And there's nothing wrong with that. It might not be what Keven Andrew would personally do, but that doesn't make it wrong.

What's wrong with that is that it's no longer a roleplaying game at that point.

If I say I want to play a knight, I mean I want to wear armor, ride around on a horse with a sword and a lance, beat up black knights and giants, slay dragons, and have my squire clean my armor and curry my horse while I go read courtly love poems to my lady fair. If the GM tells me I can't do any of those things, that "knight" is just an arbitrary label and in fact the only thing I can do is hop two squares forward followed by one square on either side, possibly taking a member of the opposing team? That's not a roleplaying game. That's chess.

Similarly, if I'm playing a wicked witch, I expect that I should be able to fly around on my broomstick, and when I throw a ball of fire, it should do average damage to the lion, the girl and her little dog, double damage to the scarecrow, and probably no damage to the guy made out of tin because tin doesn't burn unless you get it exceedingly hot and I don't have a dragon handy. If the mechanics or "crunch" or stat blocks or whatever you want to call them don't follow this basic bit of common sense, they should be thrown out and new ones implemented, because it breaks immersion and verisimilitude to expect players to believe in a world where creatures made out of straw don't burn but can be dissolved by rust monsters.

Now I do agree with you, that things should follow a internal logic. So a scarecrow should burn easily unless there is a legit reason why not. Like protection vs fire magic item on it or something. lacking a internal logic/common sense I agree breaks immersion for me as well.

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

4e, even when played rules-first-story-second, is a roleplaying game. Saying that it isn't just comes off to me as throwing a semantic tantrum.

I agree with you ideas about how the game is best played, but those ideas are just preferences, and I think it's immature to declare the whole exercise invalid when they aren't met.

Edit: Sorry if this comes across as really judgmental, but I think that a lot of what is wrong with the RPG community is exemplified by exactly what you're doing here. Looking at ways that other people like to play the game and going out of your way to dismiss them as "not roleplaying", "not a game", "not D&D", or otherwise not valid.


Hydro wrote:
It's not even that the GM isn't a good match for the system. In fact I'd say his attitude is an excellent match for the system; what it isn't a good match for is the attitude of the Wicked Witch's player.

I'll admit that my argument has a weakness, resulting from my assumption that the GM is the one who designed the scarecrow. If the scarecrow had been statted out in a professionally published product, without a weakness to fire, then it's a bad DESIGNER for that system.

Scarab Sages

Hydro wrote:
It's not even that the GM isn't a good match for the system. In fact I'd say his attitude is an excellent match for the system; what it isn't a good match for is the attitude of the Wicked Witch's player.

It seems he doesn't care for your 'straw man' argument, Kevin.

;)

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

Aaron Bitman wrote:
Hydro wrote:
It's not even that the GM isn't a good match for the system. In fact I'd say his attitude is an excellent match for the system; what it isn't a good match for is the attitude of the Wicked Witch's player.
I'll admit that my argument has a weakness, resulting from my assumption that the GM is the one who designed the scarecrow. If the scarecrow had been statted out in a professionally published product, without a weakness to fire, then it's a bad DESIGNER for that system.

Well, it's only bad design if it was trying to model the Wizard of Ozz scarecrow in a straightforward way. A 'scarecrow' who is specifically immune to fire and specifically vulnerable to rust doesn't sound like an accident to me, it sounds like a "gotcha!" monster. But that's getting really caught up on the particulars of the example.

I think the jist is, a good GM should make sure the rules do what he wants them to. Even though some GMs approach that problem backwards; not as finding or writing stats for an existing character, but as "fluffing up" and contextualizing an existing stat block so it fits into the world. And neither approach is innately wrong; it all depends on what parts of the game you value.

This is something that 4e-verses-3e discussions get caught up on time and time again.


cibet44 wrote:
Sorry, but being lead designer of 4th ed means he green lit pg 115 of the 4E PHB. A clear dig at Pathfinder. You don't get to call for gamer unity when your very design and promotion is what fractured the community to begin with. If 4E were a raging success and Pathfinder an abject failure Mr Mearls would not be calling for gamer unity, I'm sure.

I agree with every word of this.

I dont hold any kind of hate for Mearls, I just dont care what he has to say at this point (or anyone else at WotC for that matter). I expected no less from WotC with D&D for a number of reasons which I wont elaborate on because it's all been said a number of times by alot of people.

TBH, Im glad everything turned out the way it did. Paizo has been great with the evolution of the game and they seem to genuinely love the game from its roots to the present. Im sure alot of corporate decisions go into it here too, it just seems like they are in it for the game as well as the bottom line.

Dark Archive Bella Sara Charter Superscriber

I love when someone is offended on someone else's behalf. It adds additionaly righteousness to an already righteous act.

Y'all need to get over the Pathfinder thing. Even if it was a jab (and the evidence is mixed on that front), Paizo isn't half as butthurt as everyone else is on their behalf. Judging by the relationship between Paizo employees and WotC employees generally (hint: it doesn't involve firearms), it seems like it was a humorous jab, not an "OMG HOW DARE YOU" insult.

Grow up. Paizo doesn't care, why do you?

Contributor

Aaron Bitman wrote:
Hydro wrote:
It's not even that the GM isn't a good match for the system. In fact I'd say his attitude is an excellent match for the system; what it isn't a good match for is the attitude of the Wicked Witch's player.
I'll admit that my argument has a weakness, resulting from my assumption that the GM is the one who designed the scarecrow. If the scarecrow had been statted out in a professionally published product, without a weakness to fire, then it's a bad DESIGNER for that system.

Getting back around to Mearls second article, part of his point is that all systems have design flaws, rules loopholes and exploitable weaknesses. Most aren't as absurdly obvious as a scarecrow with no weakness to fire, but players will find them and come up with combos which are optimal and legal by the rules but defy the logic of the world and break verisimilitude. It's much better to preserve that by putting the power back in the GM's hands and letting him say, "I don't care what the rules say--That makes no sense, so I'm going to make a sensible ruling off the cuff."

It's also useful to stress to the GM that he gets to do that, rather than having to invent absurd explanations like alchemical flame retardants applied by the Munchkins to explain the miraculously fireproof scarecrows.


Dark_Mistress wrote:
The Jade wrote:
Dark_Mistress wrote:
On the topic of fluff. I like the term fluff and I like fluff. fluff sounds cute and the creamy goodness that makes up fluff is good. So i see fluff as a positive term.

It doesn't really bother me either. Flavor is my forte, and that makes me a paid fluffer.

Er... Hold on...

Everyone has to start somewhere, don't be ashamed. Just go out and be the best damn fluffer you can be. :)

Thanks for the sinspiration! It's like a pep rally for deviance!

Rave reviews thus far, but everyone keeps making the same joke about "giving me a tip" for my good service. I find it tedious.


Kevin Andrew Murphy wrote:
Calling it "flavor" is barely better. I prefer "narrative description" as that implies more of what I think the rules should actually be.

WHAT!?! Well, if you prefer soulless technical terms to evocative, powerful terms, sure, call it "narrative description." But you're a talented guy, so I'll give you time to develop your preference for FLAVOR. ;-)


Dark_Mistress wrote:
On the topic of fluff. I like the term fluff and I like fluff. fluff sounds cute and the creamy goodness that makes up fluff is good. So i see fluff as a positive term.

You're so fluffy when you say that! ;-)

The Exchange RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

Kevin Andrew Murphy wrote:
Getting back around to Mearls second article, part of his point is that all systems have design flaws, rules loopholes and exploitable weaknesses. Most aren't as absurdly obvious as a scarecrow with no weakness to fire, but players will find them and come up with combos which are optimal and legal by the rules but defy the logic of the world and break verisimilitude. It's much better to preserve that by putting the power back in the GM's hands and letting him say, "I don't care what the rules say--That makes no sense, so I'm going to make a sensible ruling off the cuff."

I agree with you, Kevin, but people are very good at devising reasons that, oh, weapons could have both the flaming and cold properties, for example. After a day or two, they're so used to their justification that they can't imagine anybody would have a problem with it.


Chris Mortika wrote:


people are very good at devising reasons that, oh, weapons could have both the flaming and cold properties, for example.

Of course. It's a Perrying Sword. Hot N Cold.

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

Chris Mortika wrote:
After a day or two, they're so used to their justification that they can't imagine anybody would have a problem with it.

In some cases they know that 'certain grognards' may have a problem with it, but they assume that the problem stems from having to play with control freak DMs and/or from a frank absence of creativity (and, if they hear about you playing your way, they won't hesitate to tell you so).

In other cases they recognize why others may have different playstyles. They simply continue to prefer their own.

Personally, even I would be a little surprised if a DM didn't like a "cold-fire" longsword, because this is one area where I think that scorning thermodynamics turns out to be totally badass and quintessentially fantastic. But to each their own. :)

Contributor

Chris Mortika wrote:
Kevin Andrew Murphy wrote:
Getting back around to Mearls second article, part of his point is that all systems have design flaws, rules loopholes and exploitable weaknesses. Most aren't as absurdly obvious as a scarecrow with no weakness to fire, but players will find them and come up with combos which are optimal and legal by the rules but defy the logic of the world and break verisimilitude. It's much better to preserve that by putting the power back in the GM's hands and letting him say, "I don't care what the rules say--That makes no sense, so I'm going to make a sensible ruling off the cuff."
I agree with you, Kevin, but people are very good at devising reasons that, oh, weapons could have both the flaming and cold properties, for example. After a day or two, they're so used to their justification that they can't imagine anybody would have a problem with it.

In my experience as a GM, those "justifications" are generally a very thin coating of wax over a very large ball of cheese and generally boil down to some variant of "A wizard did it!"

While I like having six impossible things before breakfast as much as the next writer, I really can't stomach "This is what happened that time all the gods got really high!" if I'm running a world with a greater semblance to reality than, say, "Yellow Submarine."

Contributor

KaeYoss wrote:
Chris Mortika wrote:


people are very good at devising reasons that, oh, weapons could have both the flaming and cold properties, for example.
Of course. It's a Perrying Sword. Hot N Cold.

Only if it were a Singing Sword as well, with some Dancing properties too.

It is also, of course, a broad sword, and when it dances, it jiggles. And no you can't turn those properties off.

Worse, it's part of a mated pair with a flaming bastard (named, appropriately "Brand") that does comedy.

No, you can't turn that property off either.

Scarab Sages

Chris Mortika wrote:
people are very good at devising reasons that, oh, weapons could have both the flaming and cold properties, for example.
KaeYoss wrote:
Of course. It's a Perrying Sword. Hot N Cold.

Are Muppets flammable?

Scarab Sages

Sebastian wrote:

I love when someone is offended on someone else's behalf. It adds additionaly righteousness to an already righteous act.

Y'all need to get over the Pathfinder thing. Even if it was a jab (and the evidence is mixed on that front), Paizo isn't half as butthurt as everyone else is on their behalf. Judging by the relationship between Paizo employees and WotC employees generally (hint: it doesn't involve firearms), it seems like it was a humorous jab, not an "OMG HOW DARE YOU" insult.

Grow up. Paizo doesn't care, why do you?

+ infinity.

What would these crusading carebears do, if they saw the parodies Logue and Pett did of each other?

It would be like the finale of 'Scanners'.


Snorter wrote:
Sebastian wrote:

I love when someone is offended on someone else's behalf. It adds additionaly righteousness to an already righteous act.

Y'all need to get over the Pathfinder thing. Even if it was a jab (and the evidence is mixed on that front), Paizo isn't half as butthurt as everyone else is on their behalf. Judging by the relationship between Paizo employees and WotC employees generally (hint: it doesn't involve firearms), it seems like it was a humorous jab, not an "OMG HOW DARE YOU" insult.

Grow up. Paizo doesn't care, why do you?

+ infinity.

What would these crusading carebears do, if they saw the parodies Logue and Pett did of each other?

It would be like the finale of 'Scanners'.

I can haz explozhuns?

Dark Archive

KaeYoss wrote:
Chris Mortika wrote:


people are very good at devising reasons that, oh, weapons could have both the flaming and cold properties, for example.
Of course. It's a Perrying Sword. Hot N Cold.

You need to be punished for that one.

Dark Archive

The Marquis de Sade wrote:
You need to be punished for that one.

Katy can punish me.

I've been a bad, bad boy.
I've been playing too long with my cherry chapstick, and now my hands are all sticky.

Contributor

Snorter wrote:
Chris Mortika wrote:
people are very good at devising reasons that, oh, weapons could have both the flaming and cold properties, for example.
KaeYoss wrote:
Of course. It's a Perrying Sword. Hot N Cold.
Are Muppets flammable?

I'm not certain but there is video footage that they are subject to bludgeoning damage.


Snorter wrote:
Are Muppets flammable?

Elmo is such a jerk. Katy was totally mine. I think Miss Piggy helped him cut in. And who did Miss Piggy date after I dumped her? Mike Mearls. I think I've proved my point.


I agree in principle with what Mike said in the second half of the column. But I couldn't help but feel that the first half was riddled with hints that he knows the future of D&D, and that his vision of it is the only valid one, based on his view of the past and the changing times. It made believing he really meant the second half difficult, to say the least.

I think it's a fairly bland foundation for some upcoming apologetics. As a girl once said to me as she shattered my tender heart, "Too little, too late." In other words, I still believe that WoTC is on the fast track to total irrelevancy (well, except for the part where the patent office granted them far too broad an interpretation of their IP, allowing them to pretty much own every card game every invented: that's fine - they'll need the royalties).

Thankfully, I practice what he preaches: I have never had anything against anybody who likes 4th edition, and I even break a smile when I see little kids with their dads getting new books at the FLGS. One day, if my son finds he wants to play with his friends at school (Jr. High is on the horizon), I will even buy him the books and go over it with him. As a player of Warmachine, and fan of wargames in general, I have a lot of fun gabbing with all the other gamers I know, even listening eagerly to stories about their games under the rulesets of the Evil Empire. As a hobbyist who extends his veneration even to makers of model airplanes, tanks, and railroads, I know we are a real community.

Still think they made the wrong decisions.


Bruunwald wrote:

I agree in principle with what Mike said in the second half of the column. But I couldn't help but feel that the first half was riddled with hints that he knows the future of D&D, and that his vision of it is the only valid one, based on his view of the past and the changing times. It made believing he really meant the second half difficult, to say the least.

They keep reminding me, over and over, of that one column a few years back where they announced the OGL was a success for what it set out to accomplish, and then went on to eulogize it as they boldly trod forward into the future.

Freakin NOTstradamus over there....


Freehold DM wrote:
James Martin wrote:
Dark_Mistress wrote:
I thought it was pretty well said and I agree with him. I think he is just saying, like what you like and respect others like what they like. In the end we are all enjoying the same dream.
I agree with him, I just rather wish WotC had embraced this philosophy a few years ago, instead of fueling the edition wars with their terrible marketing campaigns...
Indeed. I will never play a 4th Ed game because of their poor marketing practices.

Same here. I can handle just playing a game with a different ruleset, for me it was the way WotC botched the marketing campaign. I feel an "edition war" still would have resulted anyway, but I think it would not have gotten out of hand as it did if WotC wasn't there fanning the flames at every turn.


Is it bad that I didn't know who Mike Mearls was until he was mentioned at a conversation at a pub on the weekend and even then I just nodded and smiled like I knew what they were joking about and then googled him when I got home......

Its kinda sad and strange that there is still so much hate after all this time....

Let go people we have some diversity in the games that are available and that is not a bad thing....


The Marquis de Sade wrote:
KaeYoss wrote:
Chris Mortika wrote:


people are very good at devising reasons that, oh, weapons could have both the flaming and cold properties, for example.
Of course. It's a Perrying Sword. Hot N Cold.
You need to be punished for that one.

You always say that.


As far as 5th Edition goes, it's in the works. At this point, it has to be, as they've already rehashed everything in 4e style, and they're running out of ideas(or simply canceling them).

I remember back in around '07, on the WotC boards, someone(I can't recall the name) made a thread about 4th Edition. They were very Chicken Little about it, crying that this is the end of 3e, WotC is lying, the sky is falling, etc. Everyone else told them they were crazy, there was planned 3e material for the then foreseeable future. A rep from WotC even made a comment saying there was no 4e, and no plans to be a 4e, that 3e was DnD and that was where all the creative work was being done. Less than 6 months later they announced 4e at GenCon.

So yeah, 5e is on it's way, but I think this time they're going to handle things differently, and try and be a little more slick with it. It's not going to be called 5e. It's going to fly in under the assumption that it's compatible with 4e, but still new and fresh, so they can have their restart and get rid of the old books at the same time. Oddly enough Essentials already did this... I still firmly believe they won't be so bold as to call it 5th Edition, I don't think WotC can survive another edition war.

Might help their case if they don't give their old fans the middle finger in the announcement...

Contributor

Jandrem wrote:

As far as 5th Edition goes, it's in the works. At this point, it has to be, as they've already rehashed everything in 4e style, and they're running out of ideas(or simply canceling them).

I remember back in around '07, on the WotC boards, someone(I can't recall the name) made a thread about 4th Edition. They were very Chicken Little about it, crying that this is the end of 3e, WotC is lying, the sky is falling, etc. Everyone else told them they were crazy, there was planned 3e material for the then foreseeable future. A rep from WotC even made a comment saying there was no 4e, and no plans to be a 4e, that 3e was DnD and that was where all the creative work was being done. Less than 6 months later they announced 4e at GenCon.

So yeah, 5e is on it's way, but I think this time they're going to handle things differently, and try and be a little more slick with it. It's not going to be called 5e. It's going to fly in under the assumption that it's compatible with 4e, but still new and fresh, so they can have their restart and get rid of the old books at the same time. Oddly enough Essentials already did this... I still firmly believe they won't be so bold as to call it 5th Edition, I don't think WotC can survive another edition war.

Might help their case if they don't give their old fans the middle finger in the announcement...

I think this is the nub of the problem. Slickness doesn't work. Their fans are a mix of computer geeks, lawyers, and high school enfent terribles who all have highly functional BS detectors. And for those few who don't, there are snarky bloggers and cartoonists who will delight in showing them lurid photographs of just how many clothes the Emperor is not wearing.

The only hope for 5e, regardless of what they call it, is for it to be a quality product that people actually want to play.


Kevin Andrew Murphy wrote:
Jandrem wrote:

As far as 5th Edition goes, it's in the works. At this point, it has to be, as they've already rehashed everything in 4e style, and they're running out of ideas(or simply canceling them).

I remember back in around '07, on the WotC boards, someone(I can't recall the name) made a thread about 4th Edition. They were very Chicken Little about it, crying that this is the end of 3e, WotC is lying, the sky is falling, etc. Everyone else told them they were crazy, there was planned 3e material for the then foreseeable future. A rep from WotC even made a comment saying there was no 4e, and no plans to be a 4e, that 3e was DnD and that was where all the creative work was being done. Less than 6 months later they announced 4e at GenCon.

So yeah, 5e is on it's way, but I think this time they're going to handle things differently, and try and be a little more slick with it. It's not going to be called 5e. It's going to fly in under the assumption that it's compatible with 4e, but still new and fresh, so they can have their restart and get rid of the old books at the same time. Oddly enough Essentials already did this... I still firmly believe they won't be so bold as to call it 5th Edition, I don't think WotC can survive another edition war.

Might help their case if they don't give their old fans the middle finger in the announcement...

I think this is the nub of the problem. Slickness doesn't work. Their fans are a mix of computer geeks, lawyers, and high school enfent terribles who all have highly functional BS detectors. And for those few who don't, there are snarky bloggers and cartoonists who will delight in showing them lurid photographs of just how many clothes the Emperor is not wearing.

The only hope for 5e, regardless of what they call it, is for it to be a quality product that people actually want to play.

On the contrary, they've made a living off of their fan base arguing semantics(see the fluff conversation upthread). As long as they don't "technically" call it 5e, then it's not really 5e, and half their market share stays intact. It's all speculation and just opinion anyway, so I'm more than likely going to be wrong about this.

151 to 200 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