Quote from: thecasualoblivion;538948I was present when it was created. It was prior to 4E's launch, on the WotC 4E Concerns and Criticisms forum. The term was coined by those complaining about the upcoming edition, but the 4E defenders took the accusation and wore it as a badge of honor instead.

Because you are all shitheels and corporate lackeys.

Quote from: Sommerjon;538914They get those supposed numbers from icv2  a place who calls up a couple game stores asks whats hot, they also check in with some distributors about what is selling where.  Uh oh WotC has it's own distribution center, they bypass most distributors, just like GW does.  Sure you can order from distributors, but why?  you can go right to the source to get your product cutting out the middleman.

Fair enough. As I don't know the details of how the data are gathered, I will not argue it further.

QuoteWhich if you listen to the pratle about "Paizo makes all their monies on modules"  Ever see how popular their modules actually are?

For what anecdotal evidence is worth, around here they seem to do very well.

QuoteNeither is it for me, I play PF on Fridays, 1e on Saturdays and run 4e every other Sunday, but D&D has never been my favorite system.  Each version the groups seem to be having fun, at least I am enjoying them.

Sensible position.

QuoteWhy not?  You can easily play 4e with the PHB, MM and DMG. It's the insistence of dumb people here making shit up to 'prove' their points who are blowing smoke out their own asses, desperately trying to say 4e is not D&D, and all it does is make them look foolish.

I agree, you do not need anything else apart from the core books. Also, I agree on D&D being a regular RPG like any other.

Quote from: Marleycat;538931I know that but it's convenient shorthand for saying "tactical miniature battle game with rpg elements included and mixed in".  Basically the game is too focused on the battle and not the exploration and roleplay elements.

That doesn't make it a bad game or not fun. But it's not Dnd as defined before 2006 and especially 2000.

As OHT has pointed out, in the Original D&D cover says "Rules for fantastic medieval wargames campaigns playable with paper and pencil and miniature figures." And the only reason there wasn't a grid is because they used metric tape. And they told you to draw your dungeons using graph paper so you got the measures right. Please, let us not deceive ourselves. Maps, minis and all the visuals associated with TEH EVUL GRIDS have been there since the fucking beginning.

Quote from: Sommerjon;538937Look at 1e, the game is based on the inch, outdoors that spell of 1" is 10 yards indoors 1" is 10 feet.   So a spell that has a range of 4" is 40 yards outside, but only 40 feet inside.  WTF?  Yet that is A-okay for some reason.  Why have standardized ranges?  Why a factor of 10?  Why are things so precise in measurements?  

Ever look at say S3?  Guess what it's a grid.  Shocking isn't it.  You can actually draw the whole thing out on paper place models and go through it room by room by room.  Absolutely nothing stopping a group from doing that.  I know because I have done it.

So why is it wrong to have a grid for?

Yet for 4e having a grid is somehow, someway wrong and meant to be belittled.  Never mind the game has been based around the grid since it's inception, it's spells are standardized in measurement, it's modules are 100% based upon a grid, etc.

Or let's look at powers.  "Partly because they resemble card entries but also because using one feels like playing a card to me"
So why hasn't D&D always felt like this?  What are spells but a card that you tap?   What about abilities(from older editions) that are 3/day.  Sure you could use them all in one encounter, but would that be wise to do?  Or is the smarter thing to do(you that whole strategic thing, not tactical thing)to use them sparingly throughout the day like a spellcaster does.

Yeah, Vancian magic is no different than tapping cards in Magic: the Gathering. Many groups around here wento on and printed actual cards with the desscription of each spell, so every day the wizard player would create his deck. It was D&D all along, anyway.

I see power cards as just convenient.

Quote from: jeff37923;538928You know, I have never seen 4E fans take the 4vengers whose behavior is mischaracterizing them to task for doing this. If 4E fans who are not douchebags don't police their own, then why shouldn't we tell them to fuck off when they are being wankers?

Too busy playing the game, perhaps?

I'm actually only half-joking; you won't notice them in the world, because they're not as obnoxious, and from what I've seen of them they get just as much shit thrown at them from the 4vengers as everybody else does if they dare criticise D&D4 in any way. Fighting against that just isn't worth the effort.

Or in other words, the 4vengers are shitheads, and only represent the 4vengers. They're the extremists, not the majority of the fanbase.

Quote from: Ladybird;539042Too busy playing the game, perhaps?

I'm actually only half-joking; you won't notice them in the world, because they're not as obnoxious, and from what I've seen of them they get just as much shit thrown at them from the 4vengers as everybody else does if they dare criticise D&D4 in any way. Fighting against that just isn't worth the effort.

Or in other words, the 4vengers are shitheads, and only represent the 4vengers. They're the extremists, not the majority of the fanbase.

I've argued with 4vengers quite often.  The problem is that doing it tends to sour me on the game itself until I play it again and realize that the things I don't like about it just aren't that big deal.  I actually like the tactical combat system, and the rest we can work around with good players and a good GM.  And you're right, you get exactly the same shit, so you might as well just step back and let 3E fans who enjoy arguing with 4vengers have at it.  It's no fun being stuck in the middle.

But really, the best place on the net to get real discussion of 4E is, or at least used to be, the Wizards character optimization board.  Those guys really know the game, and many of them are under no illusions about many of the flaws in the game.  And there's no one there for the 4vengers to rail against so they're pretty much absent.

Quote from: Sommerjon;538848No it's not, it's purely a fan concept.
I'm looking at MMII 1e, printed in 1982 reading the preface by Gary, no where does he mention anything about 'supplements' 'optional', in fact it is the direct opposite of that mentality.  Looking at the Dungeoneer's Survival Guide, front cover "this essential sourcebook..."  Not optional, not supplemental, essential.  

If marketspeak from the cover of DSG is all you've got to hang your arguments on...  you go, dude.  

Hm. Sommerjon keeps posting. Let's have a look at the give-a-shitometer:



Well. There you go.

Quote from: Ladybird;539042Too busy playing the game, perhaps?

I'm actually only half-joking; you won't notice them in the world, because they're not as obnoxious, and from what I've seen of them they get just as much shit thrown at them from the 4vengers as everybody else does if they dare criticise D&D4 in any way. Fighting against that just isn't worth the effort.

Or in other words, the 4vengers are shitheads, and only represent the 4vengers. They're the extremists, not the majority of the fanbase.

Gods, I hope so.

4E does not work for me, but the 4vengers just don't seem to work for anybody except their own gaming religious fundamentalism.

Quote from: DestroyYouAlot;539078If marketspeak from the cover of DSG is all you've got to hang your arguments on...  you go, dude.  

How about this
Core Rulebooks

Why looky there the only Core rules you mother fucker are saying is....the big 3.  Oh My Fucking Gawd, no motherfukin way.

What you mean PHB2 is only a supplement? link

You idiots have been blowing so much smoke up your own asses, you haven't even bothered to actually look.  It's far, far easier for you to spew bullshit.


You wonder why you have 4vengers, this is why.  You want them to comment so you can try and be funny.  All it does its make you look like the morons you are.

Quote from: Sommerjon;539087How about this
Core Rulebooks

Why looky there the only Core rules you mother fucker are saying is....the big 3.  Oh My Fucking Gawd, no motherfukin way.

What you mean PHB2 is only a supplement? link

You idiots have been blowing so much smoke up your own asses, you haven't even bothered to actually look.  It's far, far easier for you to spew bullshit.


You wonder why you have 4vengers, this is why.  You want them to comment so you can try and be funny.  All it does its make you look like the morons you are.

wonka.jpg

Quote from: DestroyYouAlot;539090wonka.jpg

That's it?

Damn dude, climb back in your highchair.

Quote from: Sommerjon;539091That's it?

Damn dude, climb back in your highchair.

Quote from: Sommerjon;539091That's it?

Nothing more to say. You are going to be offended and outraged no matter what, so why give a shit about you?

Here's my take on the whole thing.  In OD&D, AD&D, and AD&D 2e, you could easily play with just the 3 core books and have a fully functional party.  In WOTC, it seems like you can't have that.  For example, If I try to play a character from the 3.5 core rulebook only, I'll get dumped on with responses like:

"That build sucks ass.  You need to go with Class Y from the Complete Y book, take feat A from the Complete Scoundrel, feat B from Complete Adventurer's, feat C from Guide to Faerun, and then take prestige class Z from the Complete Z book."

It is literally said that you can't play with just the core book unless you want a shitty class.  And that's BS to me.

Quote from: Sommerjon;539087How about this
Core Rulebooks

Why looky there the only Core rules you mother fucker are saying is....the big 3.  Oh My Fucking Gawd, no motherfukin way.

What you mean PHB2 is only a supplement? link

You idiots have been blowing so much smoke up your own asses, you haven't even bothered to actually look.  It's far, far easier for you to spew bullshit.


You wonder why you have 4vengers, this is why.  You want them to comment so you can try and be funny.  All it does its make you look like the morons you are.

Remember how you started the argument over what core meant when people said that classes were left out of the core of 4e?

Even if 4e is only a three-book core, it's still a three-book core that left out character classes people used and liked. It pretty much broke compatibility with a shitload of home campaigns and characters that people didn't feel like starting over on (or houseruling/buying extra books for).

Quibbling about the definition of core won't change the fact that on release, 4e gave no support to people currently playing bards, barbarians, illusionists, or whatever else. Nor will it change players' dissatisfaction with the removal of vast swaths of content.

Quote from: Acta Est Fabula;539099Here's my take on the whole thing.  In OD&D, AD&D, and AD&D 2e, you could easily play with just the 3 core books and have a fully functional party.  In WOTC, it seems like you can't have that.  For example, If I try to play a character from the 3.5 core rulebook only, I'll get dumped on with responses like:

"That build sucks ass.  You need to go with Class Y from the Complete Y book, take feat A from the Complete Scoundrel, feat B from Complete Adventurer's, feat C from Guide to Faerun, and then take prestige class Z from the Complete Z book."

It is literally said that you can't play with just the core book unless you want a shitty class.  And that's BS to me.

Hell, half of the problems people trot out with d20 are only problems once you start down that old dirt road of splatbloat.  With the base 3 books and a SELECT handful of add-ons, we did just fine until the basic bloat of the game (endless fucking modifiers, half-hour combats, etc.) ran us off the road.  Most of it comes down to a DM who can't say no (which, obviously, is their perfect customer, so of course that's who gets to drive the game design going forward).