My feelings about 5E D&D


4th Edition

101 to 150 of 539 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

mousey wrote:

I only know for sure their (wotc or hasbro) decision is always based foremost on profit, whether direct (net profit) or indirect (marketing campaign to imrpove image which ultimately improves profit)

Although i do wonder if the corporate culture of wotc may have changed over the years to be more "hasbro-like" than before. After all, turnover is high. People who were there prior to hasbro takeover are mostly gone (i surmise). Corporate vision and KPI are set by parent company.

I would expect the same as you. Corporate memory is hard to maintain with high staff turnover. Plus I think one of the things Hasbro does like to influence within its subsidiaries is corporate culture.


Kite Windsocks wrote:
As for asking for the input from players, Hasbro (yes them, there in charge have the first & last say) has seen the success of Pathfinders playtest and wants the same.

You know this because of your magic crystal ball, presumably.


Scott Betts wrote:
Zmar wrote:
Overreacting a lot? Not that I'd like to say that my formulation is accurate.
I don't think so. I think that overblown expectations and entitlement is a huge problem in the gamer community, and I think that the mental gymnastics associated with turning a casual wish into a firm promise is part of the root of that problem.

Maybe so...maybe huge expectations, feelings of personal slights, and problems with marketing are a problem in the gamer community. I can't really say. But at the same time, there are definitely people who just disliked 4E because of its content. And their dislike has nothing to do with notions like high expectations, marketing issues, presentation issues etc...

I mean, if WotC had presented 4E to me in a golden box while I sat on a cashmere pillow and was fanned and fed grapes by 10 beautiful women, I still wouldn't have liked it. There are just "hard" pieces of content and rules that I don't like about 4E. The classes all function the same, there aren't enough non-combat abilities, almost every utility spell got turned into a ritual, etc.

There are plenty of other folks that feel the same as well I'm sure. I know there are people that like 4E, but I think that the player base is split on this point...and for good reason.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Creslin321 wrote:
I mean, if WotC had presented 4E to me in a golden box while I sat on a cashmere pillow and was fanned and fed grapes by 10 beautiful women, I still wouldn't have liked it.

I'd have pretended to like it. :D


5e is a glimmer of hope on the horizon for me. I'm eagerly looking forward to it.

3e brought my gaming groups together. We were a scattered bunch of friends in different social circles, playing a variety of obscure and sometimes home-brewed games. 3e came along, and BAM! Suddenly we were all playing under one system, and it was awesome!

4e came along, and split our group in half. Needless to say I think a good many of us(myself especially) took things too seriously, but things were said, the group split, the damage was done. The majority of us just weren't ready for the change; we had multiple active campaigns going on weekly, with a metric ton of unused material still left to explore. A few of us were ready to change up. 4e is not to blame for this, it's an inanimate set of objects. It's just a game, but it was a catalyst for a host of repressed social issue our group had.

3 years pass, everybody is friends again, so long as our gaming conversations stay nice and generic(with statements that would apply to both editions). I hear the rumors about 5e, the "other team" hears the rumors as well, and suddenly we're talking again.

I realize everybody is 10 years older from the day we began 3e, so no daydreams about reliving the "good ol' days", but if 5e is a good enough game, I know a lot of segregated gaming groups who can openly share a gaming table again. There's no "edition war" anymore for us; the 4e players are all on board with playtesting 5e. The 3e grognards among us have mostly moved on to Pathfinder and are happy there, but aren't as closed-minded regarding 5e, since there's no real push for them to change up systems. PF is supporting their rules just fine, so 5e is pretty neutral in the equation. I'm mostly looking forward to joining up with old friends and getting back into a game on the ground-level.

Really, there's no war this time. If the bulk of the 4e crowd is cool with 5e coming along, then maybe we'll get through this one with considerably less burn-damage than the last edition change. Give it another week or two for all the grognard prophets to get the "I told you so!"'s out of their system, and I think we'll be in good shape after that.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Josh M. wrote:
3e grognards

I've been called a grognard (and Luddite) for so long that the idea of being a "3E grognard" is just funny. :D


Kite Windsocks wrote:
As for asking for the input from players, Hasbro (yes them, there in charge have the first & last say) has seen the success of Pathfinders playtest and wants the same. They could make or break themselves with this method; they are going to have to listen to fans.

I don't believe that the Hasbro suits care a whit about open play testing. While I don't believe they consider D&D insignificant (because of the relationship WotC has with Hasbro and where D&D licensing fees go), they're honestly not going to be that interested in the nitty gritty details. They're too far removed from the process.

I believe it's WotC itself that has come to realize that they need a more open play test to not end up with the same results they got in 4e - a game presented to the public that adopted it at a lower rate than anticipated because it was not what a significant number of players wanted. They need ongoing input from wider ranges of players and they need to listen to it and find a way to address it if they want to succeed.


Jerry Wright 307 wrote:
Creslin321 wrote:
I mean, if WotC had presented 4E to me in a golden box while I sat on a cashmere pillow and was fanned and fed grapes by 10 beautiful women, I still wouldn't have liked it.
I'd have pretended to like it. :D

LOL, well played :).

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Scott Betts wrote:
Good lord, is everyone convinced that Hasbro decides how D&D is played?

I certainly am. 4ed copied way too much from commercially successful games such as WoW. I'm surprised they don't all have three talent trees. It's too formulaic, too well put together to meet a goal that is arcane. I don't feel that 4ed simulates historical combat, ancestral conditions, or literary fantastical conditions. Way too many MMO concepts to make any sense otherwise. That combined with all manner of weasly performance with online products and server-pushed stuff instead of offline applications, plus the continued push on miniatures (I use little hex grids: our miniatures are sequins from Wal*Mart with smaller sequins on top, and when I draw an outside map, long range is visibly different than medium). So, every profiteering trend that started or was made worse with 3rd continued in 4th, plus tons more.

I am absolutely convinced that Hasbro's presence results in the actual rules minutia being tweaked. The devs over there have metaphorical guns to their heads, and Paizo is still making stuff that is rock and roll and rainbow penis demons. Hell, I took a shot when I saw the incubus got published.


cfalcon wrote:
I certainly am. 4ed copied way too much from commercially successful games such as WoW.

And it's just totally inconceivable that choosing to draw some inspiration from popular MMORPGs like WoW (which have, of course, drawn their own inspiration from D&D) was a decision made by people working on D&D at WotC?

That strikes you as totally implausible?

Quote:
I'm surprised they don't all have three talent trees. It's too formulaic, too well put together to meet a goal that is arcane. I don't feel that 4ed simulates historical combat, ancestral conditions, or literary fantastical conditions. Way too many MMO concepts to make any sense otherwise. That combined with all manner of weasly performance with online products and server-pushed stuff instead of offline applications,

Again, it doesn't strike you that there are legitimate reasons to want to move apps to a web-based platform? Totally implausible? I just want to get a sense of whether you considered the possibility before I tell you how it actually is.

Quote:
plus the continued push on miniatures

Except for, y'know, when they shut down their miniatures line and started producing very affordable full-color cardboard tokens instead, right?

Quote:
I am absolutely convinced that Hasbro's presence results in the actual rules minutia being tweaked. The devs over there have metaphorical guns to their heads, and Paizo is still making stuff that is rock and roll and rainbow penis demons. Hell, I took a shot when I saw the incubus got published.

And all this from your magic crystal ball.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Scott Betts wrote:

And it's just totally inconceivable that choosing to draw some inspiration from popular MMORPGs like WoW (which have, of course, drawn their own inspiration from D&D) was a decision made by people working on D&D at WotC?

That strikes you as totally implausible?

Yes. Or, rather, the clear profit drive removes the agency from anyone at WotC who made that call. When you HAVE to do something, it's not really a decision, and this smells a hell of a lot like that.

There's no reason to make Pen and Paper like MMOs. Hell, MMOs are the knockoffs. Not dissing them, I probably play more MMO than 90% of the folks reading this, but simply put, all the strange MMO rules are in place in an MMO because things HAVE to be specific. You need dust from enchanting, because you can't just specify that someone, somewhere, has the magical stuff you need, etc.

Quote:
Again, it doesn't strike you that there are legitimate reasons to want to move apps to a web-based platform?

No.

Quote:
Totally implausible? I just want to get a sense of whether you considered the possibility before I tell you how it actually is.

I don't think there is any motivation besides controlling users. An open solution with the best interest of customers (and the community as a whole) would look a hell of a lot different, and would not be tied to servers that will have a vanishingly small chance of lasting out the decade. Tying creative things to crap like that is just a way of trying to make ideas expire, by saddling them with all manner of disgusting baggage.

Quote:
Except for, y'know, when they shut down their miniatures line and started producing very affordable full-color cardboard tokens instead, right?

Shutting off a profit-driven product that isn't making profit doesn't make them noble.

Quote:
And all this from your magic crystal ball.

Hey, if fifth rules, then I'll buy it. I bought some 4ed products before it was obvious that it wasn't for me as a DM at all (and is not really for me as a player either, but the mismatch isn't as severe). But I have every reason to believe that Hasbro has shaped and molded the strange shape of 4ed, and not much contrary besides some words about the future. Don't forget those edgy marketing campaigns crapping on everyone with a gnome PC that they actually like, because I guess they had to divide the community to conquer the section that they could? I still don't know what the hell those things were about.

A creative venture can't be answerable to just absolutely everyone. It ends up having the edges filed off, and while you can't accidentally cut yourself by bumping into it, you also can't use it as a tool to shear through the veil of normalcy as easily.

So yea, crystal ball or just paying attention. Look, if they start to make great creative stuff again, then super, Paizo could use some competition :P. There's no reason a big corporation *can't* do that. It's just that many of them won't, don't know how to hold the reins right.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Scott... The way you stand up and Crusade for WoTC I'd almost bet you work/worked for them and where a part of 4E. Which I am not dogging in any way, as anyone who created that baby would defend it, even if the baby was evil by everyone else's standards but your own.

You sound like someone who loves 4E more than any other version... Once again nothing wrong with that. Personally I loved 1, and 3.5 and even aspects of 2 but do I defend them? No I speak of my fun times with them and the positives of them and reflect days gone by. There are those people who are purest's and will NEVER play anything but 1E, just like there are those people who hated anything called D&D and play games like Warhammer RPG, or GURPS, or what ever else.

Lets face it, 4E is now the dinosaur. It's bones can still be found, and looked upon in wonder and even enjoyed by those interested in that dinosaur, just like 1 - 3.5 are dinosaurs that live on in their own wonderful way.

Lets face it, 4E put a bad... and I do mean BAD taste in a lot of players mouths. It's like anything, get sick off eating a can of Tuna fish, you are not likely to go eat another can of Tuna fish in a long time. get sick from Taco bell and you have not a good word to say about Taco Bell. Even though the CEO or those that love the place will defend it to the end. Now who was behind 4E? WOTC, so that puts the same bad taste in the mouth and once again, when that happens? You have nothing good to say.

Maybe WoTC has outlived it's usefulness just like TSR did. Maybe they should have stayed with what they knew. Maybe Hasbro should have stuck with what they knew and stayed away from WoTC... Who is to say. Share holders in the end will fully decide each of the fates.

Now with your comment on minis. I... and I am only speaking for me, I'll not by some 2 dimensional cardboard or plastic picture. To me that would be like going back from playing Skyrim to playing Zork. I'd rather using my imagination before 2 dimensional pictures. But I do not have to worry about that as some one who has been playing for 30+ years, I have collected more mini's than I know what to do with and continue to buy what I need. But if I did not have mini's I might as well just use Starburts (Yes we have done that) Maybe the plastic minis did not sell well enough so WoTC stopped. Maybe they where not cost effective? Maybe they just made a bad business choice. We know it's not demand as Paizo seems to be doing well on their's

Let me add... to jump on the MMO band wagon with a pen paper is, well stupid to say the least. Just because you sell 1 Million copies of an MMO does not mean you will come close to matching that in Pen and paper. Why copy MMO's when it was MMO's that copied Pen and paper? How long do most MMO's last? Not many last very long. WOW seems to hold the crown and it is falling to SWTOR. WOW took it from Everquest, and while that game is still around, it does not have the following, nor ever had the following of WOW. Did Neverwinter nights even sell as many copies of the PC game as 3.5? NO. Why? Target market. Not all D&D players play computers, not all computer gamer's play Pen and paper. In the end I am sure both helped each other somewhat, but lets face it Neverwinter nights the PC was no where the game 3.5 was or is. In fact it had game killing bugs in it. Just like I would say 4E had bugs in it that helped to lose players. I'd much rather see a PC game copy a pen and Paer than vice versa. But I digress

In the end Scott, you have to just face the music, 4E was NOT as popular as it was hoped to be. And it put a BAD awful taste as well as WoTC in peoples mouths, just like some would say the same for TSR and Gygax

With that enjoy WoTC and 4e. I hope you have fun. And lets hope that %e is 25% better than 4E, but I hope for 100%, but I will have my doubts it will do that.


IceniQueen wrote:
Scott... The way you stand up and Crusade for WoTC I'd almost bet you work/worked for them and where a part of 4E. Which I am not dogging in any way, as anyone who created that baby would defend it, even if the baby was evil by everyone else's standards but your own.

Ah, yes.

The only way anyone could ever want to defend evilbad WotC4eHasbro is if they worked for them. What a novel idea.

Quote:
You sound like someone who loves 4E more than any other version...

That's because I do.

Quote:
Once again nothing wrong with that. Personally I loved 1, and 3.5 and even aspects of 2 but do I defend them? No I speak of my fun times with them and the positives of them and reflect days gone by.

That's certainly your choice.

However, to pretend that your editions of the game experience anything like the constant bashing that 4e and its fans experience is really kind of bewildering. You don't really perceive a need to defend your favorite games. That's fine. But people feel a need to attack 4e and the company responsible for it, often for reasons that have little or no basis in reality. We choose to correct that when we see it.

Quote:
Lets face it, 4E is now the dinosaur. It's bones can still be found, and looked upon in wonder and even enjoyed by those interested in that dinosaur, just like 1 - 3.5 are dinosaurs that live on in their own wonderful way.

4e will be relegated to the same shelves that the rest of those games are, but for the moment it's still a supported RPG system. And when it does go up on that shelf, I'll probably be playing 5e.

Quote:
Lets face it, 4E put a bad... and I do mean BAD taste in a lot of players mouths. It's like anything, get sick off eating a can of Tuna fish, you are not likely to go eat another can of Tuna fish in a long time. get sick from Taco bell and you have not a good word to say about Taco Bell. Even though the CEO or those that love the place will defend it to the end. Now who was behind 4E? WOTC, so that puts the same bad taste in the mouth and once again, when that happens? You have nothing good to say.

Sure. But instead of saying nothing good, many in this community chose to say everything bad.

Quote:
Maybe WoTC has outlived it's usefulness just like TSR did. Maybe they should have stayed with what they knew.

What, collectible card games? If that were the case, you'd never have 3.5, an edition you purportedly love.

Quote:
Now with your comment on minis. I... and I am only speaking for me, I'll not by some 2 dimensional cardboard or plastic picture. To me that would be like going back from playing Skyrim to playing Zork. I'd rather using my imagination before 2 dimensional pictures.

I prefer cardboard, full-color tokens for a number of reasons.

1. They adequately represent the monster being used, just as minis do.

2. They are affordable enough that I can literally own a cardboard token of every monster in the books, and multiple copies of many of them.

3. They are extremely easy to store and transport.

Quote:
But I do not have to worry about that as some one who has been playing for 30+ years, I have collected more mini's than I know what to do with and continue to buy what I need. But if I did not have mini's I might as well just use Starburts (Yes we have done that)

So have I. In fact, I regularly use candy pieces to represent minions, with the player who kills the minion eating the candy.

Quote:
Maybe the plastic minis did not sell well enough so WoTC stopped. Maybe they where not cost effective?

Yes.

Quote:
Maybe they just made a bad business choice. We know it's not demand as Paizo seems to be doing well on their's

Paizo just started selling them. We'll see how that works out. But even Paizo is introducing a line of cardboard monster tokens. It's tough not to see the strengths of that format.

Quote:
Let me add... to jump on the MMO band wagon with a pen paper is, well stupid to say the least. Just because you sell 1 Million copies of an MMO does not mean you will come close to matching that in Pen and paper.

I don't think that was their logic.

Quote:
Why copy MMO's when it was MMO's that copied Pen and paper?

They didn't copy MMOs. They drew inspiration from them. Which is why 4e doesn't actually play like an MMO (despite the hyperbole some of its detractors try to push).

Quote:
How long do most MMO's last? Not many last very long. WOW seems to hold the crown and it is falling to SWTOR.

Let's be clear: WoW isn't falling to SW:tOR. If WoW is losing subscriptions, it's because it will soon be eight years old. It's ancient by video game standards, and it's miraculous that they're holding onto millions and millions of subscriptions this long. The Old Republic is a great game, but it's not killing WoW. It will benefit from WoW's slow decline, but it won't be responsible for killing it.

Quote:
WOW took it from Everquest, and while that game is still around, it does not have the following, nor ever had the following of WOW. Did Neverwinter nights even sell as many copies of the PC game as 3.5? NO.

Neverwinter Nights sold millions of copies by 2004. Do you have sales figures for the 3.5 Player's Handbook? You must have had some idea of its sales to make that claim.

Quote:
Why? Target market. Not all D&D players play computers, not all computer gamer's play Pen and paper.

Are you telling me that Neverwinter Nights wasn't successful, or that it wasn't properly leveraged?

Neverwinter Nights is on the list of best-selling PC games of all time.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Too bad we don't have signatures here, so let my quite mine from another forum:

When you start to cut up a quoted post into single sentences to reply to each one seperately, you've probably started to just defend your oppinion as valid instead of adding any new thoughts to the discussion. Then it's a good idea to just let the issue rest, even though you think your opponent is wrong.


Yora wrote:
Too bad we don't have signatures here, so let my quite mine from another forum:

I

Quote:
When you start to cut up a quoted post into single sentences to reply to each one seperately, you've probably started to just defend your oppinion as valid instead of adding any new thoughts to the discussion.

dis

Quote:
Then it's a good idea to just let the issue rest, even though you think your opponent is wrong.

agree.

Furthermore, I'd argue that when you've reached the point where you're taking time to dissect the other person's style of posting, you've probably already stopped adding anything useful to the discussion at hand.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Oh good, I get to agree with Scott on some stuff:

Quote:

I prefer cardboard, full-color tokens for a number of reasons.

1. They adequately represent the monster being used, just as minis do.

2. They are affordable enough that I can literally own a cardboard token of every monster in the books, and multiple copies of many of them.

3. They are extremely easy to store and transport.

Agreed. When I was young, I banned minis (and would almost never use any manner of maps except on "fights that mattered"). As DM, I would describe the round-by-round play of things once I had all the inputs from the players and monsters.

In 3.X, we kept the minis banned. It was obvious to me that I needed a better map than the tiny ones I saw, and so I made a table spanning hexmat, and a couple smaller ones, and would write on them with dry-erase. For the most part, I still use this today.

Currently, the markers we use really just show size. However, I've seen and used the cardboard ones at other tables, and they work just fine. I definitely never liked it when DMs would feel guilty not making the encounter they really WANTED. The minis put a social limitation on that. I'm sure minis will still be available, and I'm sure people will still use the standard size grid more than custom made hex maps, and that will continue to limit the encounters that can happen (and by that standard, where you can stand). But the markers are a BIG step forward. They are also very easy to transport. Minis, while awesome looking, are bulky, at times fragile, are expensive by the standards of many players and, at their trough, were only available randomly.

Quote:
However, to pretend that your editions of the game experience anything like the constant bashing that 4e and its fans experience is really kind of bewildering. You don't really perceive a need to defend your favorite games. That's fine. But people feel a need to attack 4e and the company responsible for it, often for reasons that have little or no basis in reality. We choose to correct that when we see it.

I honestly think that the 4ed fans are still eating the blowback from the marketing and presentation of 4ed. First, of course, is the fact that 4ed, while a radical departure from D&D (you can convert a 1ed character to 3.5 or Pathfinder- in 4th, that guy will be rebuilt), it retains the name. The implication is that you should 'upgrade', despite the fact that 4ed doesn't do the same things 3.X does, not really. I was really taken aback by the announcement, from the very moment they kicked me out of the Three Dragon Ante room because they needed it to announce the silly thing.

So, as a player, I felt on the defensive right away. It didn't take me long at all to realize I wouldn't be porting any of my worlds to 4ed, and it didn't take me much longer to realize that I would rather play other systems as well- and yet, the message WotC was sending was that this was the only way to go. If 4ed had been marketed differently, or if 3.X material had continued to come out, I wouldn't have been nearly as hostile to it.

Oh, and I'm also a pretty big open source advocate. Seeing how LUDICROUSLY STUNNINGLY the OGL worked- looking at all the extra movement that the 3pps drummed up for WotC, and how big the market got- and then to see the attitude be "no totally, this should all be OUR pie to eat" was ludicrous. It would be like if Red Hat decided that THEY WERE LINUX and suddenly made some closed source OS that did everything differently and called it the new Red Hat. I can be persuaded about a lot of things- that some DMs don't want to tell the stories I do, or create worlds, or have a simulationist system. I can buy that some players want stuff differently, and things that I like might not be important to others. That all makes sense to me. But the OGL is flat out political. When WotC went back on that, it was obvious that something was broken. The OGL also worked like crazy, by the way- 3.X was more successful than 2ed.

Quote:
Let's be clear: WoW isn't falling to SW:tOR. If WoW is losing subscriptions, it's because it will soon be eight years old. It's ancient by video game standards, and it's miraculous that they're holding onto millions and millions of subscriptions this long. The Old Republic is a great game, but it's not killing WoW. It will benefit from WoW's slow decline, but it won't be responsible for killing it.

WoW also has changed what they are a lot. They've done this to try to keep current, but inevitably many people will be alienated. But overall, you are correct: the WoW game is considered stale by a lot of the players. I just lost some great guildies to TOR, but they were going to hop on ANY strong MMO that came along next. WoW is still the most massively dominant MMO by some huge margin (an order of magnitude about), so talking about it dying is like talking about fencing dying- it doesn't even make sense. And there's a lot more WoW players than fencers.

Ultimately, 5ed likely has too many people to appeal to. I could be sold on a system without Vancian casting, but I would want SOME FORM of casting, a resource system besides cooldowns. I want the system to not shy away from "at the DM's discretion". I want guidance for better situational bonuses and ideas for cool obstacles and such. I want characters to have different resources. Hard to balance that? Good. That means when it DOES get balanced, that you've done a good job of game design. I want the game to be able to simulate two peasant boys with sticks, and also simulate two gods-a-rumblin, and I want it to be able to do it with less than a million billion die rolls. I want the weapons to be inspired by history, but not somehow make wacky claims- no uber-Falcatas or gods-forbidden spiked chains.

4ed DID ACTUALLY address some of the VERY REAL issue 3.X had. But, to me, the solution was to just shred the system. People asked for a way to balance D&D more than it was, and the only answer that WotC could come up with was a total redesign? Unimpressed!

So I don't know what 5th will do. From the way they are talking, it will probably be much more appealing to me than 4ed. But can it top 3.X? For me, the answer is *probably* going to be no. 3.X and Pathfinder have a bunch of history and such, but there's also the fact that the things Pathfinder have added have been... clever. For instance, look at that Pathfinder Ninja. I think that's the best ninja I have ever seen in any game. And I'm pretty sure Paizo won't ignore their ninja, and release 5 more ninjas inside of a three year period. Even if 5th is a great game, I know they will go back to wizard/cleric/fighter/rogue, and then years later I'll get something else. Maybe. Impress me? Make a game with all the base classes you see yourself needing for three years, from all different cultures, so that everyone knows what the hell you are talking about when you say you are a Whatever of the Black Dragon Clan, or a Psion. I'll have a hard time going to any system without a Pathfinder Summoner available- summoners are now just a thing. They dropped right into three of my worlds, they are amazing.

The "splat reset" always begins with folks telling me that a Wu-Jen is a wizard, a ninja is a rogue, a viking is a fighter, and then within two years everything is different, because those things aren't the same.

But good luck to them on 5th. I'll certainly be watching closely.


cfalcon wrote:
WoW also has changed what they are a lot. They've done this to try to keep current, but inevitably many people will be alienated.

Right, but the alienation due to changes in WoW didn't really happen like people imagine it might. WoW's subscription base continued to grow until two years ago, three expansions in. Well after they started changing the game. In my opinion, their design decisions post-release actually helped them grow their player base. They made the game more accessible to new players, while at the same time figuring out a way to make the game more challenging if a challenge was what you were looking for. No small feat.

Quote:
But overall, you are correct: the WoW game is considered stale by a lot of the players. I just lost some great guildies to TOR, but they were going to hop on ANY strong MMO that came along next. WoW is still the most massively dominant MMO by some huge margin (an order of magnitude about), so talking about it dying is like talking about fencing dying- it doesn't even make sense. And there's a lot more WoW players than fencers.

Right, but eventually WoW will actually die. It might take a long while (or a short while, who knows) but it will happen.

Quote:
3.X and Pathfinder have a bunch of history and such, but there's also the fact that the things Pathfinder have added have been... clever. For instance, look at that Pathfinder Ninja. I think that's the best ninja I have ever seen in any game.

I agree completely. 3.5 is no longer my favorite system, even as a template, but I cannot find a single 3.5 class I would rather play over a Pathfinder class (barring, perhaps, a Bo9S class, but I'm not sure those really count). That's a fine feather in the cap of Paizo.


IceniQueen wrote:

Scott... The way you stand up and Crusade for WoTC I'd almost bet you work/worked for them and where a part of 4E. Which I am not dogging in any way, as anyone who created that baby would defend it, even if the baby was evil by everyone else's standards but your own.

Post like this are utter crap.

I don't always agree with Scott, either, but how about you stick with attacking his positions instead of attacking him?


Scott Betts wrote:
So have I. In fact, I regularly use candy pieces to represent minions, with the player who kills the minion eating the candy.

If it's chocolate, I want to play a big gunching fighter in your game! :D


Creslin321 wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
Zmar wrote:
Overreacting a lot? Not that I'd like to say that my formulation is accurate.
I don't think so. I think that overblown expectations and entitlement is a huge problem in the gamer community, and I think that the mental gymnastics associated with turning a casual wish into a firm promise is part of the root of that problem.

Maybe so...maybe huge expectations, feelings of personal slights, and problems with marketing are a problem in the gamer community. I can't really say. But at the same time, there are definitely people who just disliked 4E because of its content. And their dislike has nothing to do with notions like high expectations, marketing issues, presentation issues etc...

I mean, if WotC had presented 4E to me in a golden box while I sat on a cashmere pillow and was fanned and fed grapes by 10 beautiful women, I still wouldn't have liked it. There are just "hard" pieces of content and rules that I don't like about 4E. The classes all function the same, there aren't enough non-combat abilities, almost every utility spell got turned into a ritual, etc.

There are plenty of other folks that feel the same as well I'm sure. I know there are people that like 4E, but I think that the player base is split on this point...and for good reason.

Spot on! Well said that man! I agree 100%, this is my view entirely. If more people actually liked the edition's rules it wouldn't have had such a terrible run and commercially bombed.

I can recall being excited to read a new edition of D&D, though I owned stacks of 3e and 3.5e books (for fluff mining) I'd avoided playing it (I have since and think it's the best alongside the similar PF rules of the iterations of D&D so far) and I thought 4e might be a system we could use over the horribly house ruled monstrosity we'd been playing for the past umpteen years. However picking up the books I found it to be - well I'll be polite - 'not for me', either rules wise or in certain of it's core principles.

I actually played a session or two of 4e in a gamestore while away from home on a business trip, to the horror of my players when they found out, and found it failed in all the ways I feared it would after reading the game. Despite valiant efforts by the GM (who was using a pretty good homebrew setting, and the fact I was rolling 20s that night like the ghost of Gary was guiding my hand, the combats still dominated play-time and being tabletop did not engage me. Also there was the feeling pcs were rather bland and cookie cutter (despite best efforts to avoid that being the case). The things that worked had nothing to do with the edition, and the things that didn't everything.

Anyway, I've said enough now on this subject, I'm glad the goodies won the edition war. Vive Paizo! Further argument on 4e is unnecessary.

Shadow Lodge

Jerry Wright 307 wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
So have I. In fact, I regularly use candy pieces to represent minions, with the player who kills the minion eating the candy.
If it's chocolate, I want to play a big gunching fighter in your game! :D

We did this as well (4e game), but it led to poor tactics as players starting going after their favored type of treat instead of making the best choice for the party.

Eventually, we went back to using non-edible placeholders and just had a bowl of chocolates for players to choose from to celebrate their victories.


Jerry Wright 307 wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
So have I. In fact, I regularly use candy pieces to represent minions, with the player who kills the minion eating the candy.
If it's chocolate, I want to play a big gunching fighter in your game! :D

Psh, fighter?

Play the wizard! Big fat area attacks are minions' worst nightmare! Every round would be like reaching into the Halloween bucket for you!


ValmarTheMad wrote:
Jerry Wright 307 wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
So have I. In fact, I regularly use candy pieces to represent minions, with the player who kills the minion eating the candy.
If it's chocolate, I want to play a big gunching fighter in your game! :D
We did this as well (4e game), but it led to poor tactics as players starting going after their favored type of treat instead of making the best choice for the party.

Implement a rule where you can trade a candy of one type for a candy of any other type?

Not that your option doesn't work fine, and probably results in a lowered risk of diabetes in the party spellcasters.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rockheimr wrote:
I'm glad the goodies won the edition war. Vive Paizo!

Paizo would probably be better off if WoTC were doing spectacularly well with 4E.

Pathfinder-exclusive players should be more confident of this than those of us who prefer 4E.

Shadow Lodge

Scott Betts wrote:
ValmarTheMad wrote:
Jerry Wright 307 wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
So have I. In fact, I regularly use candy pieces to represent minions, with the player who kills the minion eating the candy.
If it's chocolate, I want to play a big gunching fighter in your game! :D
We did this as well (4e game), but it led to poor tactics as players starting going after their favored type of treat instead of making the best choice for the party.

Implement a rule where you can trade a candy of one type for a candy of any other type?

Not that your option doesn't work fine, and probably results in a lowered risk of diabetes in the party spellcasters.

"Luckily", 2 of our players are now on no-carb diets. So, in fairness to them, the Treat Bowl was removed...probably sparing us all from untimely diabetes as you suggest. ;)

Someone once suggested a "healthy" bowl of baby carrots and misc rabbit food, but that idea didn't go very far...

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Yora wrote:

Too bad we don't have signatures here, so let my quite mine from another forum:

When you start to cut up a quoted post into single sentences to reply to each one seperately, you've probably started to just defend your oppinion as valid instead of adding any new thoughts to the discussion. Then it's a good idea to just let the issue rest, even though you think your opponent is wrong.

Sometimes it's just for clarity of thought.

I think half of what's said on forums is lost in the shuffle, half ignored, half useful, and the last half only half-listened-to.


cfalcon wrote:
I certainly am. 4ed copied way too much from commercially successful games such as WoW. I'm surprised they don't all have three talent trees. It's too formulaic, too well put together to meet a goal that is arcane. I don't feel that 4ed simulates historical combat, ancestral conditions, or literary fantastical conditions. Way too many MMO concepts to make any sense otherwise.

If you're under the impression that any MMO doesn't simulate historical combat better than a tabletop RPG, I direct you to the concepts of simultaneous real-time actions versus turn-based movement.

I'll also suggest you be very specific about which MMOs you're referring to, since precise simulation utilising real historical data is a feature of some. In fact arguments about the exact balistic performance of a Pak-37 against the side armour of a KV-1c possibly take simulation of historical combat to a point where a tabletop game should give up after several minutes number-crunching.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

4e was a funny thing on release. My long time 3/3.5e group all brought the 4e PHB/DMG/MM set on pre-order from Amazon. The books arrived and the expectation that 4e would solve the problems our high level game under 3.5e had were in one reading justified, but 4 out of 6 players refused to play the game. Their call 100%, beat them with a Scott-stick if you like, but it was their call.

I believe 4e had issues of reception and acceptance from day one. It did not help 4e that a new game based on 3.5e, Pathfinder RPG, was available as a safe haven of familiarity (not to mention presented with some of the highest publishing standards in the RPG world). Had Pathfinder not been around I think 4e would have done better, as it was the "new" alternative of Pathfinder is where 4/6th's of my 5 year old group ended up. So the other 2/6th's (and me as DM) ended up having to either find another 4e group and miss contact with some good friends or play Pathfinder. Not a great situation to be in.

So my feelings are, whatever WotC do this time it should be not EXECUTED and PRESENTED in the manner 4e was. Still Pathfinder will haunt WotC, and I would say currently is looked on with envy. Perception in advertising is everything - currently, at least those who know of Paizo, it's Paizo are the good guys, and WotC are the evil empire - that is the current 'reality'. Paizo have this forum, and it's a huge win for them because even the CEO of Paizo chimes in to thank us for supporting Paizo - that is awesome and gives me warm fuzzies.

Even thought it's not a race and both companies can exist side by side it FEELS like buying from Pazio is dealing with a New Car Salesperson, but dealing with WotC is like dealing with a Used Car Salesperson - very different experiences in levels of trust.

High hopes for 5e, but I won't be pre-ordering this time.


ValmarTheMad wrote:
Yora wrote:

Too bad we don't have signatures here, so let my quite mine from another forum:

When you start to cut up a quoted post into single sentences to reply to each one seperately, you've probably started to just defend your oppinion as valid instead of adding any new thoughts to the discussion. Then it's a good idea to just let the issue rest, even though you think your opponent is wrong.

Sometimes it's just for clarity of thought.

I think half of what's said on forums is lost in the shuffle, half ignored, half useful, and the last half only half-listened-to.

Sometimes yes, but when you have a multiquote reply to a multiquote reply to a multiquite reply, then you can be quite sure that it's just two people b@~+@ slapping each other without being interested in the other oppinion.


Stefan Hill wrote:

4e was a funny thing on release. My long time 3/3.5e group all brought the 4e PHB/DMG/MM set on pre-order from Amazon. The books arrived and the expectation that 4e would solve the problems our high level game under 3.5e had were in one reading justified, but 4 out of 6 players refused to play the game. Their call 100%, beat them with a Scott-stick if you like, but it was their call.

I believe 4e had issues of reception and acceptance from day one. It did not help 4e that a new game based on 3.5e, Pathfinder RPG, was available as a safe haven of familiarity (not to mention presented with some of the highest publishing standards in the RPG world). Had Pathfinder not been around I think 4e would have done better, as it was the "new" alternative of Pathfinder is where 4/6th's of my 5 year old group ended up. So the other 2/6th's (and me as DM) ended up having to either find another 4e group and miss contact with some good friends or play Pathfinder. Not a great situation to be in.

So my feelings are, whatever WotC do this time it should be not EXECUTED and PRESENTED in the manner 4e was. Still Pathfinder will haunt WotC, and I would say currently is looked on with envy. Perception in advertising is everything - currently, at least those who know of Paizo, it's Paizo are the good guys, and WotC are the evil empire - that is the current 'reality'. Paizo have this forum, and it's a huge win for them because even the CEO of Paizo chimes in to thank us for supporting Paizo - that is awesome and gives me warm fuzzies.

Even thought it's not a race and both companies can exist side by side it FEELS like buying from Pazio is dealing with a New Car Salesperson, but dealing with WotC is like dealing with a Used Car Salesperson - very different experiences in levels of trust.

High hopes for 5e, but I won't be pre-ordering this time.

Aehm... 4E didn't have Pathfinder to compete against from the start. PF resulted due to a rather sizeable group of players not being too happy about it AFAIK.

If 4E was even like Essentials from the start it could have been different perhaps.


Zmar wrote:
4E didn't have Pathfinder to compete against from the start.

That alone should tell us that WotC's approach with 5E will necessarily be different. They cannot use the 4E release scheme or even its goals, because Pathfinder exists. They have to address the issues that have led to Pathfinder's creation.

Competition is definitely a good thing.

Liberty's Edge

Zmar wrote:


Aehm... 4E didn't have Pathfinder to compete against from the start. PF resulted due to a rather sizeable group of players not...

Oh yes it did, both 4e and PF beta came out in 2008. It was perhaps worse for 4e in that PF beta was free to try. This meant people didn't have to stick with 4e after first impressions and could not only continue with an updated 3.5e rules set BUT also take part in a huge playtest to improve the 3.5e rules further.

Ok perhaps now is worse for 5e in that PF is established?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Stefan Hill wrote:
Zmar wrote:


Aehm... 4E didn't have Pathfinder to compete against from the start. PF resulted due to a rather sizeable group of players not...

Oh yes it did, both 4e and PF beta came out in 2008. It was perhaps worse for 4e in that PF beta was free to try. This meant people didn't have to stick with 4e after first impressions and could not only continue with an updated 3.5e rules set BUT also take part in a huge playtest to improve the 3.5e rules further.

Ok perhaps now is worse for 5e in that PF is established?

Just some info from my own play groups (yes I know the difference between data and anecdote...)

Every active 3.5 player in both of my groups of players immediately went out and purchased the 4e core books when they hit the bookstores. Every one. Both of my play groups immediately set up a 4e campaign to try out the new system.

Four years later (five now?) one group is playing only 4e, the other is playing only Pathfinder.

My 4e group has actively purchased lots of additional 4e material. Most are DDI subscribers.

My PF group has not purchased a 4e item in over three years and they refuse to play it.

My 4e group is more open to playing a PF session.

Both groups are cautiously optimistic about the upcoming 5e release and members of both groups have signed up to participate in the playtesting.

Somehow I just can't escape the feeling that my personal experience with the 4e and PF releases is a remarkably accurate simulation of the marketplace overall.

Liberty's Edge

I agree - with the emergence of PF there was no requirement to stick with D&D as when it went 1e --> 2e --> 3/3.5e. Pathfinder was seen to be D&D in all but name. D&D as a brand hasn't had that sort of competition since the initial Runequest days. Still good for D&D not to be the unchallenged king, 5e will I think be a good game. WotC know that if 5e isn't at least as good as PF that the D&D brand may end up having to pass it's crown onto Pazio and Pathfinder.


The fact that both came out in 2008 doesn't mean thst they are necessarily contemporaries. When Paizo people found 4E not to their liking they started to announce the intention to keep the 3E alive via PFRPG but not with comming of 4E, but somewhat later. If 4E didn't split the community that hard at it's beginning I doubt that there would have been an opportunity and the PFRPG could be just a hought or became something like a separate OGL system of lesser renown, ranking among the retro-clones perhaps.


Scott Betts wrote:
ValmarTheMad wrote:
Jerry Wright 307 wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
So have I. In fact, I regularly use candy pieces to represent minions, with the player who kills the minion eating the candy.
If it's chocolate, I want to play a big gunching fighter in your game! :D
We did this as well (4e game), but it led to poor tactics as players starting going after their favored type of treat instead of making the best choice for the party.

Implement a rule where you can trade a candy of one type for a candy of any other type?

Not that your option doesn't work fine, and probably results in a lowered risk of diabetes in the party spellcasters.

Holy crap, that's an awesome idea. Chocolate minis! That would get kids playing D&D...


Zmar wrote:
The fact that both came out in 2008 doesn't mean thst they are necessarily contemporaries.

The fact that they are both on the market, popular games at the same time makes them contemporary.

Shadow Lodge

Stefan Hill wrote:

4e was a funny thing on release. My long time 3/3.5e group all brought the 4e PHB/DMG/MM set on pre-order from Amazon. The books arrived and the expectation that 4e would solve the problems our high level game under 3.5e had were in one reading justified, but 4 out of 6 players refused to play the game. Their call 100%, beat them with a Scott-stick if you like, but it was their call.

I believe 4e had issues of reception and acceptance from day one. It did not help 4e that a new game based on 3.5e, Pathfinder RPG, was available as a safe haven of familiarity (not to mention presented with some of the highest publishing standards in the RPG world). Had Pathfinder not been around I think 4e would have done better, as it was the "new" alternative of Pathfinder is where 4/6th's of my 5 year old group ended up.

I didn't really even get into PathFinder until after we had already played and disliked 4E enough to unanimously give it up. At the same time, about half of my group (10ish players) didn't ever go to PathFinder, while some basically get a few products and steal it for our 3.5 play. I don't know, maybe I am mixing things up, but I'm pretty sure PF was after 4E for me, even though I remember the late Alpha, eand pre beta days.

However, what I was going to point out is, is that a lot of current PF players joined when the final (current) Core book was released, which I think was a year (2?) after 4E was released. <again, might be mixing things up> So the fact that PF existed really didn't have that much to do with 4E's reception or problems from day one.


Beckett wrote:
However, what I was going to point out is, is that a lot of current PF players joined when the final (current) Core book was released, which I think was a year (2?) after 4E was released.

A year and a couple months. 4e was released in the summer of 2008, Pathfinder was released in August of 2009.


Scott Betts wrote:
Zmar wrote:
The fact that both came out in 2008 doesn't mean thst they are necessarily contemporaries.
The fact that they are both on the market, popular games at the same time makes them contemporary.

I meant that they were not released simultaneously. PF alphas and beta came after 4E was already out and thus it didn't compete with PFRPG from the start. 4E started splitting the community and PFRPG capitalized on that. It wasn't that 4E and PFRPG splitted the gamers from the start, I'd more relate the effect to tandem charge warhead. 4E started it and PFRPG cemented the creation of two camps.

Liberty's Edge

Scott Betts wrote:

But people feel a need to attack 4e and the company responsible for it, often for reasons that have little or no basis in reality. We choose to correct that when we see it.

I have to agree with Scott here, 4e seems to get attacked a lot here, even when its not totally relevant to the topic of a discussion.

I am a 3.5 person who also plays some 4e (and PF), but for whom 4e didn't quite gel and it never convinced me to give up 3.5 - and yet I feel prompted into defending 4e quite a bit simply because the hate (and yes I use that word on purpose) it gets doesn't always seemed based on fact, or little more than a hate for WotC!

I personally am not a big fan of WotC either, their decision to pull PDFs pissed me off, but I don't pretend that they are a big monster out to deliberately antagonise people, some of their decisions may have that effect but its not the intention.

So basically if people wnat the likes of Scott to stop defending 4e so vociferously, I would suggest trying to get the critics of 4e to cut back on the hate and focus more on clear and focused arguments about why it worked or didn't for them.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think for some people at least, their edition of choice is a matter of "feel" an entirely subjective concept. I have friends that still refuse to move to 3rd edition or anything like it. To me, 4e didn't feel like D&D and I think many people share my opinion (it is not a statement of absolutes, just MY opinion.) It is my hope that 5e is a good game, there is something that feels wrong to me to not like the current version of D&D. I will probably stay with PF, unless 5e is an absolutely fantastic system, but it would be nice to like D&D again, there is something nostalgic about saying "are we playing D&D this weekend?" Right now I am forced to play 2e to get that. I say go team 5e or D&D Next (whatever they want to call it, as long as it is D&D and it feels like D&D).

Liberty's Edge

Rockheimr wrote:
I'm glad the goodies won the edition war. Vive Paizo!

Seriously? Paizo are the goodies? I suppose WotC are the nasty evil baddies, eh? <rolls eyes>

Shadow Lodge

Scott Betts wrote:

But people feel a need to attack 4e and the company responsible for it, often for reasons that have little or no basis in reality. We choose to correct that when we see it.

DigitalMage wrote:
I have to agree with Scott here, 4e seems to get attacked a lot here, even when its not totally relevant to the topic of a discussion.

I don't know, I'm still trying to go back and see what specifically you two are referencing here, but reasons to dislike either 4E or WotC is a subjective thing, not an objective one. Not sure it could be not relevant to a discussion on "My Feelings about 5E"?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
AHalflingNotAHobbit wrote:

+ Scott Betts wrote:

ValmarTheMad wrote:
Jerry Wright 307 wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
So have I. In fact, I regularly use candy pieces to represent minions, with the player who kills the minion eating the candy.
If it's chocolate, I want to play a big gunching fighter in your game! :D

...

Holy crap, that's an awesome idea. Chocolate minis! That would get kids playing D&D...

Let's not get carried away. We had fundamentalist groups burning D&D books in the 80's. We don't need dentists calling for it to be banned, too! :D

(Although it would make my chocolate plantation shares increase in value... hm...)

Liberty's Edge

DigitalMage wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:

But people feel a need to attack 4e and the company responsible for it, often for reasons that have little or no basis in reality. We choose to correct that when we see it.

I have to agree with Scott here, 4e seems to get attacked a lot here, even when its not totally relevant to the topic of a discussion.

I am a 3.5 person who also plays some 4e (and PF), but for whom 4e didn't quite gel and it never convinced me to give up 3.5 - and yet I feel prompted into defending 4e quite a bit simply because the hate (and yes I use that word on purpose) it gets doesn't always seemed based on fact, or little more than a hate for WotC!

I personally am not a big fan of WotC either, their decision to pull PDFs pissed me off, but I don't pretend that they are a big monster out to deliberately antagonise people, some of their decisions may have that effect but its not the intention.

So basically if people wnat the likes of Scott to stop defending 4e so vociferously, I would suggest trying to get the critics of 4e to cut back on the hate and focus more on clear and focused arguments about why it worked or didn't for them.

It's not going to go away. No matter how often we ask it not to happen. Not unless the mods get though and start banning people. When 5E is released I'm sure posters will complain it's too generic. With comments like "if I wanted to play D&D Gurps or Hero I would have played those games" or something to that effect. I'm not exaggerating I see gamers sometimes complain that Gurps and Hero System are "too generic" when both are supposed to be generic.

Liberty's Edge

Beckett wrote:
I don't know, I'm still trying to go back and see what specifically you two are referencing here, but reasons to dislike either 4E or WotC is a subjective thing, not an objective one. Not sure it could be not relevant to a discussion on "My Feelings about 5E"?

Scoot's post is here and it was in response to IceniQueen's post.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Beckett wrote:
So the fact that PF existed really didn't have that much to do with 4E's reception or problems from day one.

Pathfinder Beta and the advertising of the upcoming PF Core Rulebook wrecked my initial 4e game. This is not something that happened to someone else this was my game. Rather than see the possibilities of 4e 4/6 players said they would rather either play Beta or not play until PF came out (note we had really had enough of 3.5e's high level problems by then - which destroyed my Age of Worms campaign completely). We ALL had copies of the PHB/DMG/MM of 4e yet 4/6th were willing to shelve them and not roleplay waiting to see what PF turned out like rather than give 4e a go. These people were not 'in the loop' and had nothing for or against WotC - it was the 4e books in terms of presentation and rules that turned them off on first reading.

I seem to remember that PF Beta came out about August 2008, this was only a month after 4e came out (pre-ordered from Amazon). So 4e (June 2008), for those who knew of Paizo, had 1 month to make a lasting impression on the 3.5e crowd before 3.75e came out. Not long really in roleplaying terms. For my group this was TWO session of about 4 hours before the 4 said hey look PF Beta - it's like 3.5e only fixed, let's play that - oh and it's FREE!!!

My point being ALL other edition changes we accepted, even with grumbling, as there was NO alternative 'D&D-like' game. 4e was the first to compete against itself, i.e. D&D vs D&D.

S.


Beckett wrote:
I don't know, I'm still trying to go back and see what specifically you two are referencing here, but reasons to dislike either 4E or WotC is a subjective thing, not an objective one.

People are trying to present reasons for not liking one or the other as objective - for instance, claiming that 4e's marketing insults older gamers, or claiming that certain things do not exist in 4e (when in reality they do). Both of these things are untrue, but are claimed as reasons for not liking 4e or WotC (or both).

I also think it's kind of hilarious that people are whining in one thread about how awful it was of WotC to discuss 4e in terms of how it improved 3.5, and here we have nothing but people (some of them the same!) discussing 5e in terms of how they hope it improves from 4e.

"It's bad when the person who made the game criticizes it, but when I criticize it it's fine and not at all hypocritical!" seems to be the attitude.

Liberty's Edge

Scott Betts wrote:

"It's bad when the person who made the game criticizes it, but when I criticize it it's fine and not at all hypocritical!" seems to be the attitude.

And true. In the real world you can have whatever opinion you like of a person, procedure, product, etc in the company you work for, but you NEVER externalize these opinions as it undermines your company. By you or I saying we don't like 4e that's fine, others do. But if the company that makes 4e says it was wrong then by implication the team that made 4e was wrong, and that the people who choose that team were wrong, so at the top of the food chain, the parent company hired the wrong people.

Now these same 'wrong' people say, this time we'll get it right. That's why people take issue with internal people saying bad things about their own product - even if discontinued. It affects a purchasers perception of the ability of management to put the right people in the right place (ask any Vorlon).

WotC say they got 4e wrong by misjudging the audience and in 5e they won't. Hang on isn't Mike leading the crew for 5e? The same one who ultimately must take responsibility for misjudging the audience in 4e. Er, I should believe 5e will be everything to everyone why again?

4e was not well received initially and people didn't need to stick with it to get the D&D-experience (aka Pathfinder). By making ANY bad comments about 4e WotC are eroding their own good name and undermining consumer confidence that they can successfully produce 5e and make it something the audience want. Because they admit in 4e they didn't know what consumers wanted.

Tell us about the wonderfulness of 5e my all means, but, NO DO run down 4e to do it. It will insult 4e players to think 4e is a great game.

S.

101 to 150 of 539 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Gaming / D&D / 4th Edition / My feelings about 5E D&D All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.