Mearls pleading for unity


Gamer Life General Discussion

401 to 450 of 1,627 << first < prev | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | next > last >>

Kevin Andrew Murphy wrote:


And the point was what precisely? If you complained online about the lack of gnomes in the 4e PHB you were a troll the dragon would poop on and that the dragon only valued the opinions of his sycophants by whom he could do no wrong?

That's the point I came away with.

Same here. I mean, "troll" isn't exactly secret code. If the attacks weren't intentional, they were the result of stupidity or obliviousness of epic proportions. Neither makes me rush out and buy their stuff.

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

Digitalelf wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
But getting offended by that ad spot? And using it to decide whether or not to buy the game? That's ridiculous.

I see that my old edition war rival is still waving the 4e pom-poms with vigor and enthusiasm, but the important thing I came away with from those wars was that people expect different things out of their game than I do...

I no longer feel the NEED to defend my game of choice, nor attack the merits of the others...

People in this thread have obviously seen into those ads (and the marketing of 4e in general) as a slight to their game of choice, why even bother calling them out on it? Does it really bother you that much that they would (be or feel offended)? So they were offended? And?

I don't agree with Scott on this one but I do appreciate the desire to call out or question baseless anger and negativity. No, you can't tell someone that their emotions are wrong, but you can make them think about their point of view, and perhaps try to convince them that other companies aren't being as intentionally malicious as they might think.

Maybe I'm wrong, and such 'challenges' are really just compounding the aggression. But in my judgment it's a good thing, especially when we as gamers are so divided, for communities to stop and question why they feel the way they do.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

The only way to win a war is to stop fighting it.

Dark Archive

TriOmegaZero wrote:
The only way to win a war is to stop fighting it.

Really I always thought it was.

"To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women." :)


James Martin wrote:
If you want to get offended, go watch those poor buggers who play RIFTS. Sad, sad buggers. ;)

That's Palladium, right?

The horror stories I heard about that Siembieda guy and Palladium in general make it seem that they're even worse than wotc.

Grand Lodge

Dark_Mistress wrote:

Really I always thought it was.

"To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women." :)

That which does not kill you makes you stronger right?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

If I kill all the 4E players, their sons shall rise up and kill the sons of 3E players, and so on and so forth. It is a never ending cycle, and the only way to stop it is to lay down the sword.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Digitalelf wrote:
Dark_Mistress wrote:

Really I always thought it was.

"To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women." :)

That which does not kill you makes you stronger right?

That which does not kill you will probably try again.

Liberty's Edge

TriOmegaZero wrote:
Digitalelf wrote:
Dark_Mistress wrote:

Really I always thought it was.

"To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women." :)

That which does not kill you makes you stronger right?
That which does not kill you will probably try again.

Or leave you a feeble vegetable. :(


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Digitalelf wrote:
Dark_Mistress wrote:

Really I always thought it was.

"To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women." :)

That which does not kill you makes you stronger right?
That which does not kill you will probably try again.

If someone tries to kill you, you kill 'em right back.


ShinHakkaider wrote:


I mean I dont go onto the WOTC board to defend 3.5 and Pathfinder

Oh, you should. Make sure you're not at all offensive to anything wotc. Just say that in addition to 4e, you like Pathfinder, since it's so different a game and you like variety, or anything like that.

Then count the seconds until the Wave comes crashing in.

These boards here don't do that. Paizo actually defends the competition's fans when they're being harassed.

It's not a bad thing, of course, but there's people who abuse it. Just ignore them.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

I'm now tempted to go start posting on the WotC boards.


ShinHakkaider wrote:
I often ask myself that self same question. I mean I dont go onto the WOTC board to defend 3.5 and Pathfinder, yet there are people here who just relish being the staunch defender of all things 4E.

I can't speak for my fellow 4e fans, but as a fan of the Pathfinder setting and a Paizo customer (got AP #19 in the mail on Saturday :D ), I think it's a little silly that you'd question my right to be here. What are you against, exactly?

ShinHakkaider wrote:
Here's what bugs me about it though...do guys like Scott really think that they're going to change peoples minds by constantly calling other peoples view points ridiculous and saying that his way to view something is really the ONLY WAY to view something?

Nope. Frankly, it's often a lost cause dealing with clear cognitive dissonance or hardened opinions. But, thankfully, what the internet lacks in coherent discussion it makes up for in traffic. Explaining concisely why an opposing viewpoint is faulty might not convince the person holding the viewpoint, but it might convince those just stopping in. Or not.

ShinHakkaider wrote:
I'm sorry, but I remember how I felt when I saw those promo pieces. I was expecting something that would inform me about the new game, not take relatively mean spirited swipes at the game that I really liked and was still playing? Tell me what's great about 4E without telling me that my game was not fun. That's how I interpreted those pieces.

It's tough to say something like "Hey, we fixed grappling!" or "Hey, we made grappling better!" without implying that there was something about grappling worth fixing. WotC gave you plenty of previews, interviews, etc. explaining what the game would be like. Fixating on the one that merely implied what they were fixing seems odd.

ShinHakkaider wrote:
Scott on the other hand, believes that anyone who didn't take those pieces as anything less than overwhelmingly positive is oversensitive and ridiculous.

Nope, but portraying me as holding that opinion definitely makes it easier to rail against me, doesn't it?

Not everyone is going to see these ads as positive. Some probably see it as pretty neutral, and some might even see it as negative. And hey, that's what opinions are for. Being offended by the ad, though? That doesn't strike me as a healthy way to see the world.


KaeYoss wrote:
These boards here don't do that.

Do you mean in threads other than this one?

Because I think the "welcome" Scott got, which included basically being told he doesn't belong here, was something less than admirable. :/

Contributor

KaeYoss wrote:

Who would buy something from a company who goes out of their way showing how badly they think of their old product, how bad it was?

I can see the "It was great for its time but now it's starting to show its age!" approach, and the "The old was good, but the new is so much better!" approach.

I definitely don't see the "All we did before was rubbish" approach working. Maybe, just maybe, you might have some chance with it if you acknowledge your shortcomings in the past and try to make people believe that you've learned from past mistakes. But that's still risky, since you'll draw attention to your past shortcomings.

They didn't even do that. They went on and on about how crappy their past product was. I won't buy anything from someone like that.

It was worse than that. It was also a classic snake oil pitch: It showed three eras of incompetent DMs and whiny players who didn't know how to roleplay miraculously transformed by the marvelous power of 4e into a fantabulous DM with a table filled with happy engaged players.

A competent DM in any era would have said, "Oh, everyone knows that rule is borked. I'm handwaving over it or using this house rule in its place."

I was also waiting for the scene where the 4e crew starts griping about the DDI being badly implemented then having to deal with a power failure while the DM is saying "The part of the troll today will be played by the scarab swarm because that's what I got out of my randomized mini pack."


bugleyman wrote:
KaeYoss wrote:
These boards here don't do that.

Do you mean in threads other than this one?

Because I think the "welcome" Scott got, which included basically being told he doesn't belong here, was something less than admirable. :/

Haha, I got that "welcome" here years ago. Now it's sorta like Cheers. Sometimes You Wanna Go Where Everybody Knows Your Name, Even If That Name Is Mumbled As A Curse In The Taproom Shadows. ;p

It's all good, though. Plenty of people who are plenty congenial here, especially when you get into discussions about things that everyone here likes (scantily-clad female iconics, for instance).

Liberty's Edge

Kevin Andrew Murphy wrote:

A competent DM in any era would have said, "Oh, everyone knows that rule is borked. I'm handwaving over it or using this house rule in its place."

I was just waiting for someone to check the index...

Liberty's Edge

Scott Betts wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
KaeYoss wrote:
These boards here don't do that.

Do you mean in threads other than this one?

Because I think the "welcome" Scott got, which included basically being told he doesn't belong here, was something less than admirable. :/

Haha, I got that "welcome" here years ago. Now it's sorta like Cheers. Sometimes You Wanna Go Where Everybody Knows Your Name, Even If That Name Is Mumbled As A Curse In The Taproom Shadows. ;p

It's all good, though. Plenty of people who are plenty congenial here, especially when you get into discussions about things that everyone here likes (scantily-clad female iconics, for instance).

(EM)You evidently missed a lot here lately, then. LOL. I was wondering where you'd gone a while back, haven't seen you since sometime in the fall of last year. WB, btw. :)


Kevin Andrew Murphy wrote:

It was worse than that. It was also a classic snake oil pitch: It showed three eras of incompetent DMs and whiny players who didn't know how to roleplay miraculously transformed by the marvelous power of 4e into a fantabulous DM with a table filled with happy engaged players.

A competent DM in any era would have said, "Oh, everyone knows that rule is borked. I'm handwaving over it or using this house rule in its place."

This may come as a shock, but I think it's safe to say that your average D&D player has been the DM, a player at a table with one, or has at least witnessed someone being flummoxed by certain rules. I saw every one of those clips in the ad and immediately thought, "Yeah, I've been at that table."

Quote:
I was also waiting for the scene where the 4e crew starts griping about the DDI being badly implemented then having to deal with a power failure while the DM is saying "The part of the troll today will be played by the scarab swarm because that's what I got out of my randomized mini pack."

I'm afraid the whole "Let's highlight the weak points of our product!" line of marketing thought hasn't really taken off.


Studpuffin wrote:
Kevin Andrew Murphy wrote:

A competent DM in any era would have said, "Oh, everyone knows that rule is borked. I'm handwaving over it or using this house rule in its place."

I was just waiting for someone to check the index...

They did seem to be spending an inordinate amount of time flipping through the equipment chapter.


Kevin Andrew Murphy wrote:
A competent DM in any era would have said, "Oh, everyone knows that rule is borked. I'm handwaving over it or using this house rule in its place."

PF contributor thinks that the 3.5 grapple rules were borked, and if a DM didn't think so they were not competent. Got it.

Liberty's Edge

Scott Betts wrote:
Studpuffin wrote:
Kevin Andrew Murphy wrote:

A competent DM in any era would have said, "Oh, everyone knows that rule is borked. I'm handwaving over it or using this house rule in its place."

I was just waiting for someone to check the index...
They did seem to be spending an inordinate amount of time flipping through the equipment chapter.

It's really frustrating to see that because I don't personally know anyone who doesn't check the index when they don't know what page something is on. Well, I take that back. I think we all know "that guy"...


pres man wrote:
Kevin Andrew Murphy wrote:
A competent DM in any era would have said, "Oh, everyone knows that rule is borked. I'm handwaving over it or using this house rule in its place."
PF contributor thinks that the 3.5 grapple rules were borked, and if a DM didn't think so they were not competent. Got it.

I think he was just saying that really experienced DMs don't let their game get bogged down in rules quibbles when they feel it'll disrupt the flow of the game. I don't think he meant it as an indictment of any particular rule or sub-system.


Studpuffin wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
Studpuffin wrote:
Kevin Andrew Murphy wrote:

A competent DM in any era would have said, "Oh, everyone knows that rule is borked. I'm handwaving over it or using this house rule in its place."

I was just waiting for someone to check the index...
They did seem to be spending an inordinate amount of time flipping through the equipment chapter.
It's really frustrating to see that because I don't personally know anyone who doesn't check the index when they don't know what page something is on. Well, I take that back. I think we all know "that guy"...

Hahaha, now you have me wondering if I might be that guy. It takes me a little while to resort to the index.


Studpuffin wrote:
It's really frustrating to see that because I don't personally know anyone who doesn't check the index when they don't know what page something is on. Well, I take that back. I think we all know "that guy"...

Thinking back through my collection over the years, indices seem to be a relatively recent thing - are they aware that there is an index? The lack of one (3e Forgotten Realms: City of Splendors: Waterdeep, I'm looking at you) can make for an incredibly frustrating experience and I sometimes forget that the book I'm looking in just might have an index.

Liberty's Edge

Scott Betts wrote:
Studpuffin wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
Studpuffin wrote:
Kevin Andrew Murphy wrote:

A competent DM in any era would have said, "Oh, everyone knows that rule is borked. I'm handwaving over it or using this house rule in its place."

I was just waiting for someone to check the index...
They did seem to be spending an inordinate amount of time flipping through the equipment chapter.
It's really frustrating to see that because I don't personally know anyone who doesn't check the index when they don't know what page something is on. Well, I take that back. I think we all know "that guy"...
Hahaha, now you have me wondering if I might be that guy. It takes me a little while to resort to the index.

If you know where the rule is, that's good too. Spells are alphabetical, so no real issue.

It seems to me that the problem isn't the grapple rule, just the book layout (as presented by the in question commercial). That isn't exactly an argument against the earlier edition, so it feels more like a jab than a critique since it didn't call the layout into question but the rule. It kind of sneaks by, if you catch my drift...

Liberty's Edge

Lilith wrote:
Studpuffin wrote:
It's really frustrating to see that because I don't personally know anyone who doesn't check the index when they don't know what page something is on. Well, I take that back. I think we all know "that guy"...
Thinking back through my collection over the years, indices seem to be a relatively recent thing - are they aware that there is an index? The lack of one (3e Forgotten Realms: City of Splendors: Waterdeep, I'm looking at you) can make for an incredibly frustrating experience and I sometimes forget that the book I'm looking in just might have an index.

Dunno, but 3.5 had indices. I was only a short term 2e player, so I don't know what was where there (never owned my own books back when I was in 7th grade). :P


Studpuffin wrote:
It seems to me that the problem isn't the grapple rule, just the book layout (as presented by the in question commercial). That isn't exactly an argument against the earlier edition, so it feels more like a jab than a critique since it didn't call the layout into question but the rule.

When 3e players complain about the state of the grappling rules, they aren't complaining that it's hard to find which page they're on.

Liberty's Edge

Scott Betts wrote:
Studpuffin wrote:
It seems to me that the problem isn't the grapple rule, just the book layout (as presented by the in question commercial). That isn't exactly an argument against the earlier edition, so it feels more like a jab than a critique since it didn't call the layout into question but the rule.
When 3e players complain about the state of the grappling rules, they aren't complaining that it's hard to find which page they're on.

I honestly didn't remember much in the way of complaints about grappling before.

That's not the problem with the commercial though. If the problem had been with "I want to roll a diplomacy check" or "cast a spell defensively" instead of grapple and they'd fumbled through the book looking for the skills would it make the group depicted look any more inept?


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Scott Betts wrote:


I can't speak for my fellow 4e fans, but as a fan of the Pathfinder setting and a Paizo customer (got AP #19 in the mail on Saturday :D ), I think it's a little silly that you'd question my right to be here. What are you against, exactly?

Against? The fact that whenever there's a perceived slight against 4E there you are to consistently call people and their points, no matter how well reasoned and or passionate, ridiculous, silly and or trivial. You do it and have done it here and on ENworld. I read and post in both places and it's pretty much what you do. There are people who are staunch 4E defenders who are pretty rational and very easy to talk to and listen to and even though I may not agree with them on some things they make it so that I'm willing to and open to listening to their points. Why? Because they dont come across as condensing and abrasive.

Scott Betts wrote:
Nope. Frankly, it's often a lost cause dealing with clear cognitive dissonance or hardened opinions. But, thankfully, what the internet lacks in coherent discussion it makes up for in traffic. Explaining concisely why an opposing viewpoint is faulty might not convince the person holding the viewpoint, but it might convince those just stopping in. Or not.

So you admit to doing it not to carry on a conversation for mutual benefit/understanding but to make the person you're replying to to sound stupid to make your argument seem sensible in comparison. Gotcha

Scott Betts wrote:
It's tough to say something like "Hey, we fixed grappling!" or "Hey, we made grappling better!" without implying that there was something about grappling worth fixing. WotC gave you plenty of previews, interviews, etc. explaining what the game would be like. Fixating on the one that merely implied what they were fixing seems odd.

Well, the actual designers put it like that in their presentations without coming across like complete douches why couldn't the marketing people? And yes they gave previews, but the map is not the territory. And for people who were kind of already not liking what they were seeing in the previews but were STILL willing to give the game the benefit of the doubt in play it was just yet another warning sign. But hey I'm just here waiting for you to insult my positon to make yourself look AWESOME to some hypothetical bystander.

Go ahead...I'll wait.

Sovereign Court

I'd forgotten that ad for 4e, it was without a doubt the most insulting and condescending the 4e crew ever made.

Fist edition: You didn't have mats or miniatures (and were forced to use your stupid imagination I'd guess) and therefor you can't have fun.

Second edition: You can't do basic math skills therefor you can't have fun.

Third edition: You can't follow simple instructions therefor you can't have fun.

Fourth edition: ??? there could be problems, I mean the narrator practically promises problems and flaws with his "the game will remain the same" quote after showing us generations of clearly flawed products, but seeing as we don't actually have a cut scene of them playing 4e we can only speculate as to what it's flaws will be. I mean they seem to be having fun in the background what with their cheering and hand waving, which has usually been my experience with all editions of D&D, but the commercial did stress the flaws of those previous editions and so the message seems to be this one will be flawed as well.

It would really make you nervous about buying into a new system and feel stupid for buying all that other product over the years if you were paying attention to the message. Thankfully years of watching TV has allowed me to ignore and forget terrible commercials. I might try 4e some day despite this ad but right now I'm fairly pleased with their 3e product and some mods the people at Paizo have given it.


I never got the edition wars. I've played since the first little red box, so I've seen editions come and go. 4th edition isn't my cup of tea, but my niece's husband was happy it came along, since he could be in on the ground floor of the new edition. As a completist, he was frustrated by his inability to find old 3rd edition books that were out of print.

I'm happy that I stuck with Pathfinder, as my library of 3rd edition material is still seeing use. But I can appreciate someone wanting something new they can call "their edition".


ShinHakkaider wrote:
Against? The fact that whenever there's a perceived slight against 4E there you are to consistently call people and their points, no matter how well reasoned and or passionate, ridiculous, silly and or trivial. You do it and have done it here and on ENworld. I read and post in both places and it's pretty much what you do. There are people who are staunch 4E defenders who are pretty rational and very easy to talk to and listen to and even though I may not agree with them on some things they make it so that I'm willing to and open to listening to their points. Why? Because they dont come across as condensing and abrasive.

You clearly have some very personal prejudices against me. I'm not going to argue against this sort of thing.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
TriOmegaZero wrote:

It's the same problem the 'Primer to Old School Gaming' had. Someone wrote a blog post about the 'rulings, not rules' part of that.

They made the point that the author wrote the 'new school DM' boring without cause. The dynamic description used in the 'old school DM' example was not exclusive to old school playing. You can have it just as much in the 'new school' alongside the rules.

I need to find that blog post again.

Found it.

The Alexandrian has some real good stuff, I tell ya.


Guy Humual wrote:

Fist edition: You didn't have mats or miniatures (and were forced to use your stupid imagination I'd guess) and therefor you can't have fun.

Second edition: You can't do basic math skills therefor you can't have fun.

Third edition: You can't follow simple instructions therefor you can't have fun.

The first part of each of these is really iffy. Each segment was pointing out criticisms of the edition, not of the fans of that edition. The second part ("therefore you can't have fun") is you. All you. You were never told those words, by anyone. They were not even implied.

So, again, as before, the real question becomes: Why have you decided to add those words?

Dark Archive

Digitalelf wrote:
Dark_Mistress wrote:

Really I always thought it was.

"To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women." :)

That which does not kill you makes you stronger right?

It is what is best in life. :)

Dark Archive

pres man wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Digitalelf wrote:
Dark_Mistress wrote:

Really I always thought it was.

"To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women." :)

That which does not kill you makes you stronger right?
That which does not kill you will probably try again.
If someone tries to kill you, you kill 'em right back.

I love and miss that show. Though the quote is.

Someone ever tries to kill you, you try to kill 'em right back.


ShinHakkaider wrote:
And for people who were kind of already not liking what they were seeing in the previews but were STILL willing to give the game the benefit of the doubt in play it was just yet another warning sign.

This is the crux of the matter with the ads and the other material they put out. For many people I know, it wasn't one source or preview product that made them doubtful, it was the entire buildup to the release that made it seem like they were completely throwing the entire 3.x system just to fix a handful of specific problems. The initial release being as incomplete as it was simply sealed the deal for many. It had too many systems that did not work as intended or work well with the rest of the other new systems and the amount of actual usable player content was extremely limited. A lot of people were expecting something along the lines of SAGA, and found the lessons learned from SAGA largely ignored. What they did to FR really sealed the deal. It wasn't that most of the people I knew felt that they were being personally attacked by any one thing, just that there was a general sense of 4E's designers and marketers going overboard in their fixes or being surprisingly sloppy in their words choices in everything they did.


sunshadow21 wrote:
ShinHakkaider wrote:
And for people who were kind of already not liking what they were seeing in the previews but were STILL willing to give the game the benefit of the doubt in play it was just yet another warning sign.
This is the crux of the matter with the ads and the other material they put out. For many people I know, it wasn't one source or preview product that made them doubtful, it was the entire buildup to the release that made it seem like they were completely throwing the entire 3.x system just to fix a handful of specific problems. The initial release being as incomplete as it was simply sealed the deal for many. It had too many systems that did not work as intended or work well with the rest of the other new systems and the amount of actual usable player content was extremely limited. A lot of people were expecting something along the lines of SAGA, and found the lessons learned from SAGA largely ignored. What they did to FR really sealed the deal. It wasn't that most of the people I knew felt that they were being personally attacked by any one thing, just that there was a general sense of 4E's designers and marketers going overboard in their fixes or being surprisingly sloppy in their words choices in everything they did.

I often hear things like "Most people I know disliked 4e" or "Most people I know liked 4e" which makes me wonder if there's a significant social snowball effect here. Or perhaps alpha-nerd trendsetters?


Scott Betts wrote:
I often hear things like "Most people I know disliked 4e" or "Most people I know liked 4e" which makes me wonder if there's a significant social snowball effect here. Or perhaps alpha-nerd trendsetters?

I think the internet definitely helped people who were having difficulties accepting the sheer number of changes find each other and realize that they did not in fact have to move on to continue playing DnD, as there would be plenty of others to still play 3.5, and eventually Pathfinder, with. Likewise, the supporters of the new system were able to find other supporters. Thus, both sides felt they had plenty of ammo to work with, and the edition wars got ugly because neither side saw a need to back down in the face of the what they saw as overly obnoxious opposition that was threatening to overtake them if they didn't organize and band together equally well.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Scott Betts wrote:
ShinHakkaider wrote:
Against? The fact that whenever there's a perceived slight against 4E there you are to consistently call people and their points, no matter how well reasoned and or passionate, ridiculous, silly and or trivial. You do it and have done it here and on ENworld. I read and post in both places and it's pretty much what you do. There are people who are staunch 4E defenders who are pretty rational and very easy to talk to and listen to and even though I may not agree with them on some things they make it so that I'm willing to and open to listening to their points. Why? Because they dont come across as condensing and abrasive.
You clearly have some very personal prejudices against me. I'm not going to argue against this sort of thing.

You may not choose to argue against it, but it's fairly accurate. And this confrontational/non-confrontational thing thing that you're doing here? Typical.

It's fine though. I'm done.

Dark Archive

Scott Betts wrote:
I often hear things like "Most people I know disliked 4e" or "Most people I know liked 4e" which makes me wonder if there's a significant social snowball effect here. Or perhaps alpha-nerd trendsetters?

Well there is typically at least 4 often more players per GM. If a GM runs a game and doesn't understand the rules, doesn't like the rules, or knows how to adapt the rules to fit her groups gaming style. Then the game will come off poorly and color peoples opinions of the game.

Take me as a example. Of the gamers I know total it is around 15ish, in 3 groups. I am aware of more groups but I don't know any of them personally. Anyways of those 15 people only 5 of them are willing to run ever. Of those 5 only 4 are willing to run any sort of campaign. So in our group 2 of the 5 had the money/was willing to pick up 4e and run it. If both of those for what ever reason run it bad then that can and did effect the views of a total of 15 people or most gamers i know.

So in that example it makes sense with how the gamer social network is, that most people one knows will often have similar views.


Continuous drone.
Bees looking for Spring blossoms.
Honey? I doubt it.

The Exchange Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6

Lilith wrote:


Thinking back through my collection over the years, indices seem to be a relatively recent thing - are they aware that there is an index? The lack of one (3e Forgotten Realms: City of Splendors: Waterdeep, I'm looking at you) can make for an incredibly frustrating experience and I sometimes forget that the book I'm looking in just might have an index.

The original Player's Handbook had one, and so did the DMG (a very good one that referenced both PH and DMG sections). But yeah, other titles tended to not have them.


Could someone bring up why wizards saying "Grappling is way too complicated" is horrible and dastardly, and Pathfinder explicitly changing the grappling rules because they're way too complicated is the stuff of angels and saints?

I mean, assuming there's a reason that isn't "I like one company and dislike the other!"

See, a lot of changes in 4e have followed in tune in Pathfinder; one changed less, certainly, but the ideas behind the changes were the same. SoDs too much? Wizards/clerics/druids are too powerful? Fighters aren't powerful enough? Multiclassing gone horrible wrong? All classes should have options to choose from as they level?

The list goes on...and on...and on. I mean ok, I can see disliking the changes themselves in 4e, but getting mad at the desire for those changes existing while at the same time praising a game that had those same desires is offsetting to put it lightly.

Both games - especially with APG and Essentials - are far closer then many on either side of "the war" like to think.

Besides, I see no war here. I see yet another group of people taking a call for togetherness as a sign of weakness to attack. This is entirely one way.

The Exchange Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6

Scott Betts wrote:


The first part of each of these is really iffy. Each segment was pointing out criticisms of the edition, not of the fans of that edition. The second part ("therefore you can't have fun") is you. All you. You were never told those words, by anyone. They were not even implied.

So, again, as before, the real question becomes: Why have you decided to add those words?

Because it was implied that the game harmed the fun in 1E - 3E, while 4E was nothing but monster slayin' glee. Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it wasn't implied.

I know an intelligent person like yourself understands that advertising likes to imply, not just say. So what do you think presenting tables bogged down in alleged issues in earlier editions is implying?

The Exchange Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6

ProfessorCirno wrote:
Could someone bring up why wizards saying "Grappling is way too complicated" is horrible and dastardly, and Pathfinder explicitly changing the grappling rules because they're way too complicated is the stuff of angels and saints?

Easy. Pathfinder has respect for what came before, instead of dropping spellplagues and innuendo on it.


ProfessorCirno wrote:

Could someone bring up why wizards saying "Grappling is way too complicated" is horrible and dastardly, and Pathfinder explicitly changing the grappling rules because they're way too complicated is the stuff of angels and saints?

I mean, assuming there's a reason that isn't "I like one company and dislike the other!"

Heh, does anyone honestly think that these same people would have seen the exact same commercial as offensive had the game at the end been Pathfinder?

ProfessorCirno wrote:
Besides, I see no war here. I see yet another group of people taking a call for togetherness as a sign of weakness to attack. This is entirely one way.

Agreed.


ProfessorCirno wrote:
Could someone bring up why wizards saying "Grappling is way too complicated" is horrible and dastardly, and Pathfinder explicitly changing the grappling rules because they're way too complicated is the stuff of angels and saints?

2 main reasons I've come across in my many discussions here and at the local game shops:

1. Paizo was much more diplomatic and respectful in their phrasing and word choice when they explained the change.
2. Paizo didn't completely change the basic structure of every single class and race, along with the many, many other changes 4E made all at once.


Russ Taylor wrote:
Because it was implied that the game harmed the fun in 1E - 3E, while 4E was nothing but monster slayin' glee. Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it wasn't implied.

Replace "the game harmed the fun" in there with "a particular rule or aspect of the game made it more difficult to enjoy the game" and you have something that comes close to the reality of that ad.

Russ Taylor wrote:
I know an intelligent person like yourself understands that advertising likes to imply, not just say. So what do you think presenting tables bogged down in alleged issues in earlier editions is implying?

Exactly what I've said from the get-go: that each edition has had its share of problem spots, and those problems spots have been improved upon from edition to edition, a trend WotC continued in developing 4e. And, above it all, despite the changes in rules systems from decade to decade, the game is still a bunch of imagination adventurers slaying paper trolls around a dinner table.

401 to 450 of 1,627 << first < prev | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / Mearls pleading for unity All Messageboards