Quote from: thecasualoblivion;547898It being a playtest, being unhappy with the current state of things isn't necessarily a big deal, but being unhappy with the direction they seem to be taking is kind of a big deal.

There's a difference between "I don't like this direction" and "this is a bad direction".

4e certainly wasn't a failure - if it had been, there wouldn't be a 5e - but evidently WotC think that they can do better with a different direction, and it's not like 4E fans haven't had years to prove, through sales, that they're worth catering to in the long-term. If WotC wrong, fine - a 4e equivalent to Pathfinder will appear, and obtain a sizeable market share.

Perhaps, though, you need to ask yourself a question; is it more important that an RPG you play be one that you like, or be called D&D. Because perhaps D&D5 simply isn't going to be for you.

Quote from: ggroy;547862Nothing new here really.

Same type of bitching when it comes to other franchises like Star Wars, Star Trek, Stargate, Battlestar Galactica, X-Files, etc ... and most other sci-fi/fantasy franchises.

You haven't listened to Yankees and Red Sox fans lately.

Or any other NFL fans and the Cowboys.

Or World Cup fans.

Or politics.

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;547898It being a playtest, being unhappy with the current state of things isn't necessarily a big deal, but being unhappy with the direction they seem to be taking is kind of a big deal.

That is the downside of investing all your effort into D&D. When I was started gaming, it feels like things were less dominated by dungeons and dragons (it was the biggest out there, but it seemed like I was in an equal number of gurps, WoD, TORG, CoC campaigns). There were actually fewer alternatives then today we just were more open to playing other games (at least that is how I remember things---could just be nostalgia). So when 4E came out, i had no problem taking a four year leave of absence from the supported edition of D&D. They have to go in a direction and there is always the chance that direction isn't the way you want them to go. If you are seriously unhapoy with the edition when it comes out, you are lucky to live in an age where the alternative options are endless.

Quote from: flyerfan1991;547909You haven't listened to Yankees and Red Sox fans lately.

Or any other NFL fans and the Cowboys.

Or World Cup fans.

Or politics.

Aye.
I live in Boston.

Where people relax after the full contact scrum of politics by bitching about the Sox, Patriots, Celtics...

Quote from: Sacrosanct;547861[...] and it essentially has gone like this on every forum that's discussing it:

People are generally worse in anonymous spaces, though.  Burlington hardly has a huge gamer population, but the people that play D&D will generally play 3.5, Pathfinder, 4E interchangeably despite often having clear preferences for one over the other.  Perhaps unsurprisingly, you're a lot less likely to get called a shitcock for liking the wrong game when there will be immediate physical consequences for such an action.

Quote from: Ladybird;547904There's a difference between "I don't like this direction" and "this is a bad direction".

4e certainly wasn't a failure - if it had been, there wouldn't be a 5e - but evidently WotC think that they can do better with a different direction, and it's not like 4E fans haven't had years to prove, through sales, that they're worth catering to in the long-term. If WotC wrong, fine - a 4e equivalent to Pathfinder will appear, and obtain a sizeable market share.

Perhaps, though, you need to ask yourself a question; is it more important that an RPG you play be one that you like, or be called D&D. Because perhaps D&D5 simply isn't going to be for you.

It being a playtest and all, it's more about expressing dissatisfaction and hoping that changes are made to remedy that.

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;547886God forbid they make something the 4E community might want to play.

Once again, you're missing the point.  The point is people like you go around making comments like them getting rid of anything resembling 4e as some sort of slight to you personally, or to cater to grognards.  When the truth is that they are in fact including a lot of 4e stuff in.  Healing surges and at-wills are huge parts of 4e.  The truth is that they are not catering to anyone, and yet everyone.  No one is being left out.

So put on your big boy pants and get some perspective.

Quote from: LordVreeg;547913Aye.
I live in Boston.

Where people relax after the full contact scrum of politics by bitching about the Sox, Patriots, Celtics...

Oh, I can just imagine the collective apoplexy in Beantown after dropping the last two games to the Heat.  I know it was that way here in anti-Lebron territory in Ohio....

What's the matter with WotC keeping 4e in print and developing 5e whatever way they feel like?

You know, like the old schoolers say should have been done with old products (turn 'em into print on demand.) Or the way they should have handled 3e, instead of practicing slash-and-burn agriculture on their fan base.

(Note I'm not saying "WotC would do this". I'm just asking what's the matter with doing this from the viewpoint of 4e fans who don't like the way 5e is turning out.)

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;547920It being a playtest and all, it's more about expressing dissatisfaction and hoping that changes are made to remedy that.

I'd buy this if it weren't for the legions of people complaining about things that are either outright false, or aren't in scope of the playtest.  

No, people are getting their panties in a wad and bitching because they want to, not because they are looking for change.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;547927Once again, you're missing the point.  The point is people like you go around making comments like them getting rid of anything resembling 4e as some sort of slight to you personally, or to cater to grognards.  When the truth is that they are in fact including a lot of 4e stuff in.  Healing surges and at-wills are huge parts of 4e.  The truth is that they are not catering to anyone, and yet everyone.  No one is being left out.

So put on your big boy pants and get some perspective.

I could care less about 4E bits. I care about the style of game the 4E system allowed us to play, in a big picture sense. Given this past Saturday's playtest, 5E failed to deliver in a big fashion, to the point where I'm not seeing how they could manage to get there given their current direction. It doesnt matter how many 4E bits they include if they fail in the big picture sense.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;547933I'd buy this if it weren't for the legions of people complaining about things that are either outright false, or aren't in scope of the playtest.  

No, people are getting their panties in a wad and bitching because they want to, not because they are looking for change.

That's a cop out way of dealing with people who don't share your opinions.

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;547934I could care less about 4E bits. I care about the style of game the 4E system allowed us to play, in a big picture sense. Given this past Saturday's playtest, 5E failed to deliver in a big fashion, to the point where I'm not seeing how they could manage to get there given their current direction. It doesnt matter how many 4E bits they include if they fail in the big picture sense.

What if the modules allow it?

TCO is angry (excuse me, "angry" - TCO is a troll) because WotC basically did a 180' and came to old-schoolers on bended knee, first with the 1e reprints and then with the whole "include previous edition design elements by way of play options in 5e", then finally with not so subtle comments that 4e wasn't a runaway success.

Notwithstanding that 5e's got magic-users firing off magic missile at will without let or hindrance, that "short rests" are basically healing surges in disguise, and the hit point escalation is still through the roof.

Thus it's proof that he hasn't played it, and is posting to troll, QED.

As for the playtesting part, maybe I find it more irritating than most because I do testing for a living.  It gets really old to constantly hear people say what they think goes into testing (like Prof Cirno; he's one of the worst), when the reality is that they don't have a fucking clue as to what the testing process actually is.  

It is most assuredly *not* "this is my personal preference, so if it doesn't follow to my personal guidelines, then it's wrong."

Sure, I could start going over things like scope, requirements, defect reporting, development feedback, but they'd probably get a glassy look in their eyes, ignore it, and continue with raging about things that aren't really part of the process.