A big chunk of what is killing 4e is a lack of consistency. I know some people who like 4e, but even they have given up on the system because the rules change monthly. They were having to constantly rebuild their characters. While that is good for WitC's digital sales, it isn't appreciated by the customers.
It isn't good for WotC's digital sales. In fact it benifits WotC not at all unless they believe that their audience will stick with a game longer if mistakes are repaired, balance is maintained and where possible mechanics are improved simply because a better way to handle thinsg has come to light, or a way that looked good on paper turns out not to be good in practice.
Never doing errata would actually save them money because they would not have to pay employees (especially expensive computer guys) to implement the changes.
However one of the constant themes in terms of feedback that WotC gets from the fan base that does like 4E is that elements like play balance are really important and just leaving it purely to the DM to balance the game is not desired.
Personally I'm grateful for the errata myself and think that 4E has gone from a game with great potential to one thats mainly just a great game in part because of constant work in making sure that mechanics that did not work where fixed and other improvements along the way (with the odd mis step such as the whole idea of scaling expertise feats).
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I can't even begin to imagine what sort of abomination of a character they were playing that necessitated them constantly rebuilding their character. The chances of any given character being affected by a particular bi-monthly (not monthly; it may even be quarterly, now) update is fairly low, and the chances of that happening both repeatedly and significantly enough to necessitate multiple instances of character rebuilding strikes me as ludicrous.
Is there any reason we shouldn't chalk this one up to hyperbole?
I'm sorry, I must have missed the post where you were appointed the Supreme Arbiter of all things 4e. Because it's true? Because it is happening? They were playing reasonably high level (16-18) characters, so there is a lot of room for unwanted changes. They also tend to optimized characters, so attempts to stamp out exploits in the rules would also hit them hard.
If the pace of revisions has slowed since Essentials was released, they have yet to return to 4e. Personally, I have no idea how magic missile could go from requiring a to-hit roll when the rules are originally released following extensive playtesting to auto hit with absolutely no playtesting years later. There is a serious disconnect when fundamental sysem rules change without rhyme or reason.
My reference to the digital rules is because these individuals rely on the character generator to make the necessary updates.
Personally, I have no idea how magic missile could go from requiring a to-hit roll when the rules are originally released following extensive playtesting to auto hit with absolutely no playtesting years later. There is a serious disconnect when fundamental sysem rules change without rhyme or reason.
It was changed because of player feedback - it was felt that people preferred magic missile the old way.
You don't need quotes. It is painfully obvious they DID take queues from WoW. In fact it was stated during development they were trying to attract those players. The players that were the target audience since the older players were not. Good marketing choice.I think your grossly underestimating how many older players actually play MMOs and other various video game RPGs. In fact, I'd like to think that most of the older players DO play video games and so they would be a part of the "target audience" as it were.
Making 4e like a video game is not necessarily bad. However video games do it better, that is the problem.Reducing all classes to power classes like the wizard is just one design element they used. They might as well write the powers as cooldown times instead of uses per day.
Sorry but I thought this aspect of D&D sucked....hard.
EXAMPLE~
Group: "Hey paladin! We REALLY need you to smite this awful dragon here, he's kickin' our butts!!"Paladin: "Sorry guys, used it up against that nasty-bad Troll that was clawing through our rogue's face. No can do."
Group: "What?!! Why on Oerth can't Heironeous grant you some divine power?! Did you crap in his cheerios or something?"
Paladin: "Na, just don't have the Mo-jo to pull off another smite today. Gotta wait til I rest and stuff."
Group: "But it's the ONE darn thing that makes you actually effective in combat......against evil things (*whispers to the others* and not much against anything else)
Paladin: "But I've got a magical horse! And....and...some really awesome flavor!"
Group: "Good! We'll serve you to the dragon first."
Point being is that if your going to make powers, special actions, and class features a daily effect, it's gotta be encounter changing. Period. A bonus to hit (for 1 attack mind you) and some extra damage is.....well rather weak. Not only that, but it's subjected to one...
The paladin and fighter needed some help. Paizo did that in a much better way. The caster/fighter problem was never a problem for me or anyone I played with.
The hyper focus on balance was not needed. I have to strongly disagree with that. Balance is important to an extent, I think Paizo achieved the right level of balance.
I play plenty of videogames always have. But that does not mean I need them to work the same. I don't mind video game sensibilities, I don't even care that 4e is designed close to them.
What I care about is that when I state 4e has video game sensibility designs, loads of people jump on me for denigrating 4e or some nonsense like that.
Designing a game like a video game is not necessarily bad, but the play is completley different in TTG's. I see the need for the hyper balance in a video game. Especially an mMO with subscriptions. I have never seen the need to go the extreme that 4e did for a table top game.
|
It was changed because of player feedback - it was felt that people preferred magic missile the old way.
That was the change that made me stop updating my character builder - I personally preferred the original version as it made wizards have to think about moving round the field of combat to avoid cover and concealment modifiers - the new version just is an autohit whatever, boring!
It epitomised the fact that not all rules changes were needed errata, but were just tinkering and changing of minds, grrrr! :(
|
|
You have to remember that at the time he was trashing 4E, he was a competitor with WOTC pushing his own product which in the end only developed a niche market. Also remember that frequently people do tend to trash talk a company which has just dumped them and companies, boards, change over time. The WOTC that just hired him is not the WOTC that discharged him.
Competitor or not he did not have to engage in that type of behavior. And it seems as if Wotc is the only company that dump their employees. How about buying out the store firing them and then hiring them back with less pay and loss of all benfits an senority. Which happend to a friend of mine. I'm not saying it's a good thing by any means. Neither is it something unique to wotc. In any case that type of behavior does not encourgae anyone to lisen to what you have to say or make me want o buy anything from such a person. One thing that needs to be understood. People can rant all they want it will come back and bite in the behind eventually. The current attotude of "I can say what I want just don't call me out on it" does not impress me in the least. Bad behavior is bad behavior end of story and should not in away be encouraged or accepted imo.
You don't need quotes. It is painfully obvious they DID take queues from WoW. In fact it was stated during development they were trying to attract those players. The players that were the target audience since the older players were not. Good marketing choice.
Making 4e like a video game is not necessarily bad. However video games do it better, that is the problem.
Reducing all classes to power classes like the wizard is just one design element they used. They might as well write the powers as cooldown times instead of uses per day.
First off, let me correct you.
Yes. You do need quotes. If you're going to claim 4e took things from WoW right after I provide quotes that prove 3e did so with M:tG, you do, indeed, need to provide quotes to back up what you're saying.
Again, it is painfully obvious there were video game design elements. You WANT quotes, it is not necessary to provide. However I can PROVIDE a quote on that but I doubt it will be acceptable to you.
Before New YOrk comic con of 2008, I was granted membership in a meeting arranged by the website TWO TON HAMMER (My friend is news editor there) at the PORTER NOVELLI offices in NYC (which is the publicity house for WOTC) With Chris Perkins, Linae Foster (who was associate brand manager, or the brand manager at the time), thier publicist and one other staff member who was one of the lead developers for DDI character builder and Virtual table.
Within that meeting, I discussed the Video Game Design Elements with THEM. They said YES, the current trend of MMO's HAS influenced their design philosophy of 4e, along with many other video games. This however was not a focus of the meeting. There were LOTS of things we talked about and it made me very enthusiastic for the new edition.
I cannot provide quotes, because I do not have any. I have first hand evidence though, and yes you have to take my word for it, but if I am lying that makes me a terribly sad person.
Perhaps I can find an old article on TEN Ton Hammer or MMORPG about it, but I really don't have the time, and it is not necessary because I verbally asked the question and physically listened to a response.
I was a BIG proponent of the game before its release and months after. Only after playing it for several months did I feel the game was not what I wanted.
Reference above
And see my post above for 'quotes'.
I am not saying the video game aspect is what makes 4e BAD. I am claiming it is there. The MAny attempts to refute it, as people do are ridiculous.
My stance on it being designed like a video game is SO WHAT? But it IS.
Not everything, but the core mechanics yes.
I am not edition warring. I will call it how I see it.
One of the reasons: I simply found it interesting how D&D influenced Video game design and now the tables are turned, where video game sensibilities are influencing TTG upon which most of video game worlds at least are based.
So when I get comments saying I can't prove it I might get frustrated and talk about cool down periods.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As someone who just 'jumped on you for denigrating 4E' - and doesn't feel at all bad about having done so - I want to try, one more time, to explain why we see that statement as objectionable.What I care about is that when I state 4e has video game sensibility designs, loads of people jump on me for denigrating 4e or some nonsense like that.
Designing a game like a video game is not necessarily bad, but the play is completley different in TTG's. I see the need for the hyper balance in a video game. Especially an mMO with subscriptions. I have never seen the need to go the extreme that 4e did for a table top game.
1) Because many 4E players don't like 4E 'because it is a video game'. They like it, as an RPG, and find the play exactly like a standard table-top RPG. And everytime you say, "Oh, I get that people like 4E. I don't like that style, but you guys who like it being like a video game, that's fine"... every statement like is making a lot of assumptions about the people that play the game and trying to speak on their behalf. And it is frustrating and, usually, wrong.
I don't like the 4e style there is no secret of that. it is not however because it used video game sensibilities to achieve its design. There is however a different design philosophy and perhaps play style difference in 4e. 4e did not fit my playstyle.
If I tell you 4e fits your play style, and I do not like 4e, HOW is that offensive? I am not a fan of the design philosophies in 4e. How does that mean I think 4e players have the WRONG philosophy?
I get there are people that will condescend. And I did to professor above out of frustration more than anything, but when I sit in the game store and give the younger DM's advice on how to DM encounters, I do not tell them, you know the system is so easy a bird could do it. People want to play it. I tell them how to confront rules problems in general, and how to motivate. I am actually quite proud of the younger DM's that have established 4e campaigns with my help.
2) The statement itself - that 4E is designed like a video - is, as we've tried to show, fundamentally wrong. They didn't aim for better balance in 4E because they wanted it to be like a video game - they aimed for better balance because players wanted better balance. You feel they failed, or went too far, or whatever. I get that. But dismissing the genuine viewpoints of those who wanted that and are happy with what WotC did... that's poor form.
No they used those sensibilities to achieve their goal. That is different than saying it is designed like a video game. Perhaps when they wanted to balance the classes they looked at how City of Heroes does it and took cues from there.
I have been to E3. Steve Jackson sat next to my friend and I (out of chance ONLY) to listen to what they had to say at a game development panel. They then let HIM speak, to tell THEM how the old TTG's solved problems. Game design works across all mediums now.
That is Mostly what I do not like. Video game sensibilities could STILL have been used to create a game I would like, WOTC did not take that road.
3) It is not always explicitly stated, but the implication about "4E is a video game" is often trying to make specific statements about video games. Specifically, that it represents being a simpler system, less concerned about story, more focused on combat and grind and hack-and-slash, with no room for character or plot or RP. Sometimes folks just outright say this, often it is simply implied. And all that baggage is being tossed at 4E, and...
4e IS a simpler system. Even proponents say that. Saying it is a video game does not mean what you think. Mass Effect doesn't have good story? Dragon Age? Even Call of Duty?
This is what I do not like.
They took the balance system of these video games and ported it over to table top. For me that does not work. It spoiled the game.
The influence is there, to deny that is folly.
My wife plays WOW like an addict. Yet she doesn't like 4e for different reasons. If I say WoW is a video game, I am not laying a blanket statement on all 4e players.
I play 4e from time to time to socialize. I am not one of these people that separates 4e players into another room.
I love video games. I love Table-top RPG's. Mix and match them to hell and back and I'll be a happy camper.
I've frequently attempted to convert video game settings to D&D rules. Had a board game style Castlevania game once back in 2e.
Really, whether the developers did or didn't use video game influence in any version of D&D, I don't understand why it's a problem.
|
|
I do find it strange when posters point to balance and 4E and claim it's from vidoe games. I can make a balanced character using Gurps, Hero system and Savage Worlds. Does that mean that those systems based on video games. To me the designers got tired of hearing about how class x was better than class y abd decided to make everyone equal from the start with 4E. For better or worse. To claim it's only video games well is imo wrong. In our 3.5 games we had the running joke that whenever we rested up that we clicked on the fireplace icon to simulate the hours we spent resting. And guess were we borrowed that from a video game. I guess now that means 3.5 was made to emualte video games.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I find it strange that people think that comparisons to video games is a bad thing. The whole MMO thing is what helped me understand and eventually come to play 4e in the first place, since I play and enjoy MMO's. I will be joining my first 4e game next week, I think, barring disaster.
I'm sorry, I must have missed the post where you were appointed the Supreme Arbiter of all things 4e.
Yeah, that was like a week ago, but you should have received the memo.
Which is to say, your snark could be put to better use elsewhere.
Because it's true? Because it is happening? They were playing reasonably high level (16-18) characters, so there is a lot of room for unwanted changes. They also tend to optimized characters, so attempts to stamp out exploits in the rules would also hit them hard.
Yes, this is what I expected. You had players who were deliberately picking powers/feats that ought to have been easily anticipated as nerf-vulnerable, which is fine, as long as they accept that they don't have a lot of room to whine when those powers/feats eventually get nerfed.
If the pace of revisions has slowed since Essentials was released, they have yet to return to 4e.
Errata is now published quarterly, or twice a year, or something. Not very often.
Personally, I have no idea how magic missile could go from requiring a to-hit roll when the rules are originally released following extensive playtesting to auto hit with absolutely no playtesting years later. There is a serious disconnect when fundamental sysem rules change without rhyme or reason.
They liked the idea of Magic Missile changing to require no attack roll.
But you're saying a lot of things in this paragraph. "Absolutely no playtesting", "fundamental system rules", "without rhyme or reason". None of those things that you are saying are true. They playtested the change to Magic Missile. Magic Missile is not a fundamental system rule. They had both rhyme (the tradition of Magic Missile not requiring a roll to hit) and reason (an automatic, low damage attack is in-line with the Wizard's controller role).
So, I mean, why are you saying these things? Are you just guessing that they might be true, in the absence of information one way or the other, and then presenting those guesses as factual claims? That's not really a good thing to be doing.
My reference to the digital rules is because these individuals rely on the character generator to make the necessary updates.
Look, they either use the DDI suite and it handles the updates for them automatically, or they don't use the DDI suite and thus aren't forced to update their characters to begin with. If the DM agrees with them that the updates are unnecessary, then there's no problem. If the DM thinks the changes are necessary, it sounds like the players in question have as much beef with their DM as with WotC.
The video game comparison can be made about any game.
Random loot tables personally remind me of playing Diablo: monsters have random assortments of mostly cr@p items, which you stuff into your item squares/bag of holding. You then go back to town, sell the vast majority of it, and then buy the stuff you actually want.
And honestly, I've not really come across anything that makes me say to myself "Whew, glad that got nerfed. It was a real head-ache at the table."I sure have: battlerager, a few Barbarian powers, and a particularly ridiculous Invoker utility, to name a few.
See also: star pact and orb wizard.
There are a couple erratas, like magic missile, that aren't necessary but overall I'm glad that WotC puts the manpower into errata that it does. In fact, I'd be happy if they spent more time on errata and less time on new splats. Not going to happen, I know, but I can dream.
|
Multiclass Avenger feat power used to allow two attack rolls for the entire encounter, now for one round or hit or something. Monks having a level one power that, if used strictly as written, would proc damage between two enemies to infinity.
By and large game has benefited from the errata to me, however yeah...all those books on my shelf seem pointless unless I wanna stick post-it notes inside with the power revisions.
By the way, there was a reason I called them brokenrage vigor fighters.
The video game comparison can be made about any game.
Random loot tables personally remind me of playing Diablo: monsters have random assortments of mostly cr@p items, which you stuff into your item squares/bag of holding. You then go back to town, sell the vast majority of it, and then buy the stuff you actually want.
And honestly, I've not really come across anything that makes me say to myself "Whew, glad that got nerfed. It was a real head-ache at the table."I sure have: battlerager, a few Barbarian powers, and a particularly ridiculous Invoker utility, to name a few.See also: star pact and orb wizard.
There are a couple erratas, like magic missile, that aren't necessary but overall I'm glad that WotC puts the manpower into errata that it does. In fact, I'd be happy if they spent more time on errata and less time on new splats. Not going to happen, I know, but I can dream.
Broken rules that needs to be fixed getting fixed == good. Rules changes that reflect different design choices (see: magic missile) == not so good. Unfortunately, if you use the character builder, you get both.
Broken rules that needs to be fixed getting fixed == good. Rules changes that reflect different design choices (see: magic missile) == not so good. Unfortunately, if you use the character builder, you get both.
Other than magic missile, are there really that many examples of changes due to altered design choice?
It was changed because of player feedback - it was felt that people preferred magic missile the old way.That was the change that made me stop updating my character builder - I personally preferred the original version as it made wizards have to think about moving round the field of combat to avoid cover and concealment modifiers - the new version just is an autohit whatever, boring!
It epitomised the fact that not all rules changes were needed errata, but were just tinkering and changing of minds, grrrr! :(
Its certianly a good power in that autohit is definitly powerful but it autohits for a pretty small amount of damage. I've definitly seen it used by our wizard player but he felt that the other at wills where important enough to give up on the Human Heroic Effort (and Heroic Effort is a really good power) power to instead have a 3rd at will.
|
|
Broken rules that needs to be fixed getting fixed == good. Rules changes that reflect different design choices (see: magic missile) == not so good. Unfortunately, if you use the character builder, you get both.
I personally wouldn't care if wizards were allowed to choose to roll the die or not, let em take the chance or auto hit it. Don't see why that can't be another option on it really
Other than magic missile, are there really that many examples of changes due to altered design choice?
I'm honestly not sure; I stopped paying attention a while ago. If I recall correctly, however, Paladins got a pretty significant redesign in Complete Divine -- though that isn't errata.
I thought the vision for 4E as expressed in the preview books was amazing...the initial implementation somewhat less so, but still strong. Unfortunately, the more they published, the further away from that initial vision they seemed to go.
|
|
Other than magic missile, are there really that many examples of changes due to altered design choice?I'm honestly not sure; I stopped paying attention a while ago. If I recall correctly, however, Paladins got a pretty significant redesign in Complete Divine -- though that isn't errata.
I thought the vision for 4E as expressed in the preview books was amazing...the initial implementation somewhat less so, but still strong. Unfortunately, the more they published, the further away from that initial vision they seemed to go.
Yeah paladins were given another marking mechanic, the initial one from PHB was pretty awful by itself though. Made them much more viable as a defender at that point I think.
Essentials was a pretty big shift, making things much easier. I'm all for having simple yet effective classes which can be at the same table with more complex ones.
One sad thing though is the power creep; some feats have more or less been made unnecessary by some of the Essentials ones.
Broken rules that needs to be fixed getting fixed == good. Rules changes that reflect different design choices (see: magic missile) == not so good. Unfortunately, if you use the character builder, you get both.Other than magic missile, are there really that many examples of changes due to altered design choice?
A few I suspect but most are balance issues or fixing something that did not actually work the way the designers had wanted them to work. A 'new' flavour errata would be unusual because its uncommon for a new way of doing something to be so widely considered 'better' then another way of doing something. I'd actually like to see this done a little more - insubstantial is not a very interesting mechanic in 4E while the old miss chances really where pretty exciting. The fact that mathematically they are about the same means miss chance is simply the better mechanic to go with.
I respct Monte as a designer and his work. Not much as a person. For all the negative stuff he said about 4E he coming across as a hypocrite. One that hopes no one will notice the anti-4E stuff he said before.You have to remember that at the time he was trashing 4E, he was a competitor with WOTC pushing his own product which in the end only developed a niche market.
HE NEVER TRASH TALKED 4e
For f#%+'s sake this is now the like 7th time in the past three days I've had to go over this.
There isn't a single iota of evidence that Monte ever said a single negative thing about 4e. Not a single quote. I've seen this posted time and time again and yet nobody seems to know what he actually said.
He.
Did not.
Say bad.
About 4e.
You don't need quotes. It is painfully obvious they DID take queues from WoW.
Nope.
Not responding to the rest because until you provide with quotes you are wrong. If you can't prove that the developers actively took ideas from MMORPGs then...well, then you can't prove it. And your statements are meaningless.
Watch I can do it too:
"You don't need quotes. It is painfully obvious Paizo DID take queues from WoW."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nope.
Not responding to the rest because until you provide with quotes you are wrong. If you can't prove that the developers actively took ideas from MMORPGs then...well, then you can't prove it. And your statements are meaningless.
Watch I can do it too:
"You don't need quotes. It is painfully obvious Paizo DID take queues from WoW."
Why would anyone want WoW's queues? Those things can get really long...
|
|
Eh, I love 4e but the marking mechanic is very much a "taunt" MMO ability. Lose a lil bit of plausibility, but for me makes the game a bit more enjoyable and the defenders able to do their job.
Other than that I don't see the whole WoW comparison
You don't need quotes. It is painfully obvious they DID take queues from WoW.Nope.
Not responding to the rest because until you provide with quotes you are wrong. If you can't prove that the developers actively took ideas from MMORPGs then...well, then you can't prove it. And your statements are meaningless.
Watch I can do it too:
"You don't need quotes. It is painfully obvious Paizo DID take queues from WoW."
Marking is a real thing. I mean I know we're all nerds but really, have you never watched a basketball or hockey game?
A taunting mechanic is something like what the 3e knight class had, a simple save-or-attack-me. Or the Pathfinder antagonize feat. I'm pretty sure there were things in 2e that worked the same way.
4e marking isn't really related to "taunt." It's running interference.
HE NEVER TRASH TALKED 4e
While I might agree with you that there isn't any specific quote to suggest that he did trash talk 4e, you cannot say for certain that he didn't. You have not been privvy to all his conversations since he left WotC.
Nonetheless, some people seem to have the impression that he did.
The guy who was claiming that misremembered a Dancey quote.
Monte has always been very professional.
|
|
Monte did some explaining about 3.5, and how the design team knew there was problems in 3.0 that they'd like to address but were told that they'd just fix it with a dot revision re-release or something like that. Don't recall him complaining about 4e, though he did mention that it was rather shady to let go of good developers AND during the holidays too.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's also worth noting that there was a significant managerial switch between the time Monte posted his criticism of the way D&D and its creative staff was being managed and the way it is being managed today.
The people responsible for the sacking were sacked and replaced by alpacas?
While I might agree with you that there isn't any specific quote to suggest that he did trash talk 4e, you cannot say for certain that he didn't. You have not been privvy to all his conversations since he left WotC.Nonetheless, some people seem to have the impression that he did.
Then they can put up or shut up. Until something is confirmed then it's a malicious rumor and nothing more.
You don't need quotes. It is painfully obvious they DID take queues from WoW.Nope.
Not responding to the rest because until you provide with quotes you are wrong. If you can't prove that the developers actively took ideas from MMORPGs then...well, then you can't prove it. And your statements are meaningless.
Watch I can do it too:
"You don't need quotes. It is painfully obvious Paizo DID take queues from WoW."
Well if you choose to ignore my previous post from before that is on you. I have better than quotes I have first hand conversation. You can conveniently ignore it however if you like.
Then they can put up or shut up. Until something is confirmed then it's a malicious rumor and nothing more.
While I might agree with you that there isn't any specific quote to suggest that he did trash talk 4e, you cannot say for certain that he didn't. You have not been privvy to all his conversations since he left WotC.Nonetheless, some people seem to have the impression that he did.
So maybe you just need to ignore the posts without quotes.
Conveniently you can ignore things without quotes. People have read the posts with Monte criticising 4e. It was there it is not there now. Perhaps it was retracted. Either way you don't have to believe it. I for one will keep telling people what I have read. They will either believe it or they won't.
People have read the posts with Monte criticising 4e. It was there it is not there now. Perhaps it was retracted. Either way you don't have to believe it. I for one will keep telling people what I have read. They will either believe it or they won't.
The two examples on this thread did not pan out that way. One was actually Ryan Dancy and the poster had simply gotten Monte Cook confused with him. The other is inaccurate as Charles Evans used Waybackmachine to resurrect the post and there is nothing in there that is anti 4E.
Thing is this is the internet...there is no 'not there now'...there are tools to retrieve pretty much everything that has ever been though you need to be able to find or remember enough details to tell something like Waybackmachine what the hell its looking for.
At this point I'm pretty doubtful. It seems fairly clear from what we do clearly have in regards to Monte talking about 4E that he chooses his words carefully. Burning bridges is not his style.
People have read the posts with Monte criticising 4e. It was there it is not there now. Perhaps it was retracted. Either way you don't have to believe it. I for one will keep telling people what I have read. They will either believe it or they won't.The two examples on this thread did not pan out that way. One was actually Ryan Dancy and the poster had simply gotten Monte Cook confused with him. The other is inaccurate as Charles Evans used Waybackmachine to resurrect the post and there is nothing in there that is anti 4E.
Thing is this is the internet...there is no 'not there now'...there are tools to retrieve pretty much everything that has ever been though you need to be able to find or remember enough details to tell something like Waybackmachine what the hell its looking for.
At this point I'm pretty doubtful. It seems fairly clear from what we do clearly have in regards to Monte talking about 4E that he chooses his words carefully. Burning bridges is not his style.
The criticism was not inflammatory so he would hardly burn bridges. Where everything can still be found on the internet, I have plenty of other things to do, and I am not going to dig through and try to find quotes to satisfy an absolute trivial matter. I post on RPG boards for fun, not more work. I am happy to research, but not waste an hour proving a point that doesn't really matter anyway.
|
|
Then they can put up or shut up. Until something is confirmed then it's a malicious rumor and nothing more.
I admit I was out of line. It's been a pretty bad week all around. I should not have posted on this forum feeling the way I was. So I apolagize to you and others for my posts.
One thing though that Wotc cannot do is deny they are working on 5E because they said the same with 4E. They should be honest and admit to working on a new edition. Otherwise no one will beleive them.