As I haven't played D&D for more than a few sessions here and there since 3.0 came out, and since I haven't run it at all since then, and never will again, this has zero effect on me. I really can't comment beyond that. I'm only saying something here since you asked.

Over on the SJG forums in a thread about RPGs and bullies at a Junior High School, Paraj Mandreker posted this :

 

QuoteRe: The Perils Of Old School Gaming

...................
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xenmas
A lot of times it is people who have no real interest in gaming, so much as they want to play WoW without a computer. I've had really good GMs, who run d20 games with a great deal of story and role-playing. More often than not, the "hack-n-slash" players quit after a few sessions.
...................
Pmandreker's response:

My friend, who is 18 years old, and is part of my D&D 3.5 campaign, who has an encyclopedic knowledge of the rules, indicated that he is going to have no part of D&D 4th Edition, precisely because it is going to emphasize the use of computers to play D&D. So, the closer games get to computer gaming, there is apparently a price to pay there as well.

-P. (Paraj Mandreker)

- Ed C.

It's "going to emphasize the use of computers"? That shows a real lack of comprehension. He might as well swear off watching movies because they get put onto DVD eventually, and those can be watched on a computer.

Quote from: beeberi took "ambivalent" to equal the "meh" i feel too.  i'm playing other games, and too psyched for BRP and RTT to care about d&d.

What he said.

Quote from: ColonelHardissonIt's "going to emphasize the use of computers"? That shows a real lack of comprehension. He might as well swear off watching movies because they get put onto DVD eventually, and those can be watched on a computer.

i took his comment to mean that the digital initiative element is being misconstrued by some of the potential audience.  if i "needed a computer" to run a game, i wouldn't play it.  all i should need is a book (or books), dice, pencils, and paper.  

i know the DI stuff is considered optional.  i'm sure there are others like the "friend" mentioned above who are thinking otherwise, and that's another strike for WotC's implementation.

Quote from: TrevelyanPeople seem to misunderstand this one too.

AFAIK, the "yearly corebook" model will not produce a revised set of core rules each year with the same classes and a few new rules tweaks. What we will be getting is a book like PHB II, DMG II and MM II-V each year. New classes, new feats, etc. New books will add to but not replace old books.

The exisitng publishing schedule already puts out this material, the proposed "corebook-a-year" model will produce the same sort of material but under a different book structure.

That is exactly how I understand it too. Where we part ways is in me calling it a steaming pile of shit not worthy of my cash.

I think frankly that it sounds like bollocks, and that I don't understand how anyone who actually liked and enjoyed 3.x could even be looking forward to it at all given what they've said about either edition publicly, and who they've chosen to lead its development.

The whole thing is a fucking fiasco that amounts to allowing someone to hijack the game and rewrite it to suit their own person whims and houserules, and with a hearty dose "fuck off, we don't want you" to anyone who dares criticize it.  

Hiring from the D20 aftermarket for your designers was a mistake, because it's full of swinish cunts with their own little set of pet houserules they like to crow about as being "better than D&D", and now, that's what 4e is going to be.  It's not going to be D&D, it's going to be "better than D&D" in the same way that Iron Heroes, True 20, and Castles and Crusades are:  Not really better except to a handful of bitter, elitist jackholes who like to shit on the game everyone else was having fun just fine with.

But, eh.  I've gone beyond caring at this point.  It's simply the new reality.  The 3e D&D that made me love TRPGs again will still be around, the damn things free now, plus we've got two editions of NWN built on it with massive mod communities behind them to ensure they will continue to be visible for a long time.  I

Quote from: J ArcaneThe whole thing is a fucking fiasco that amounts to allowing someone to hijack the game and rewrite it to suit their own person whims and houserules, and with a hearty dose "fuck off, we don't want you" to anyone who dares criticize it.

Sir, your table at Dragonsfoot is ready.

Actually, they're not interested in  "3tards" over there, hell they closed a thread because it talked about CoC d20- there wasn't even any flaming going on in it.

Quote from: beeberi took his comment to mean that the digital initiative element is being misconstrued by some of the potential audience.  if i "needed a computer" to run a game, i wouldn't play it.  all i should need is a book (or books), dice, pencils, and paper.  

i know the DI stuff is considered optional.  i'm sure there are others like the "friend" mentioned above who are thinking otherwise, and that's another strike for WotC's implementation.

I took the comment the same way, but I'm less inclined to believe that it's WotC's mishandling of the situation that causes the confusion. I think it's simply a matter of people who only do a half-assed job of looking into anything, and simply make a snap judgment based on something they heard from someone else who heard something. :shrug: I mean, there were people still referring to the publisher of D&D as TSR years after WotC bought 'em out, and all it would have taken was for them to actually, y'know, look at any given D&D book to see the Wizards logo to understand that TSR was no longer in the picture. I'd ask Koltar for more info, but he never answers any question I put to him, so I assume I'm on his ignore list.

Quote from: ColonelHardissonI assume I'm on his ignore list.

I'm not, and I can't imagine anyone would pay attention to me and ignore you- seriously.

colonel--

tsr ref?  you get used to something, it sticks.  you keep reflexively referring it the same way.  it takes a while to learn the new nomenclature unless you refer to something constantly.

wotc's mishandling it in the sense of constantly (as i've seen or heard it, others YMMV) referring to the DI.  that implies a certain link from comp to game.  it doesn't matter if it's "optional", others will make the connection and simply assume its necessary.  

as far as "a half-assed job of looking into anything", well that's how most things work these days.  and that's also where customer referrals come from, too.  if someone in a gaming group has an unfavorable experience with system "x", then he'll pass that on to his group.  instant negative publicity, right or wrong.  

sorry, didn't mean to be snarky about it.  but the market and the public aren't logical, are they?

I probably already said a version of this - but most of my store's customers that mention it seem a little wary or on edge about it.


- Ed C.

Quote from: HaffrungSir, your table at Dragonsfoot is ready.

No, not really. We don't include 3.x under the "old school" label over there.

Quote from: MelanNo, not really. We don't include 3.x under the "old school" label over there.

Yeah, I know. Just alluding to the bitter attitude in common, where a new edition wounds like a personal attack.