Quote from: J Arcane;514933Eh, that excuse is horseshit.  The Warhammer games get constant edition churn for the same reason RPGs do: money, and lazy development.  A new edition means more models to sell because, oops, I guess those old ones aren't legal now, and more army books to sell because, oops, the developer lost a match last week so that totally has to be nerfed.

By comparison, the Ground Zero Games line have all had the same rules for ages now, because they did them fucking right and no more modification is really required.

I know 4 Full Thrust players, and 40+ WFB/W40k ones. And I asked actually. So, you know...

I do not like GW's publishing method. And of course I'd prefer them to "get it right at first try". But they are trying, and not doing that bad of a job so far.

Quote from: Rincewind1;514975I know 4 Full Thrust players, and 40+ WFB/W40k ones. And I asked actually. So, you know...

I do not like GW's publishing method. And of course I'd prefer them to "get it right at first try". But they are trying, and not doing that bad of a job so far.

Warhammer 40K is the 4e of tabletop wargames.

Quote from: J Arcane;514933Eh, that excuse is horseshit.  The Warhammer games get constant edition churn for the same reason RPGs do: money, and lazy development.  A new edition means more models to sell because, oops, I guess those old ones aren't legal now, and more army books to sell because, oops, the developer lost a match last week so that totally has to be nerfed.

While I can follow you on the Army Books argument, I'm not following you on the "not legal miniatures" argument. My understanding is that virtually all Warhammer minis ever produced are still legal. (The exception being a very small handful of minor armies that are no longer supported in 8th edition.)

Quote from: Justin Alexander;514995While I can follow you on the Army Books argument, I'm not following you on the "not legal miniatures" argument. My understanding is that virtually all Warhammer minis ever produced are still legal. (The exception being a very small handful of minor armies that are no longer supported in 8th edition.)

Depends on how finicky your local tourney is about WYSIWIG rules.  Changes in wargear stats or rules can mean an army you built and glued and painted is now wasted plastic.  Then there's also removal of units from the lists, removal of whole factions from the game, failure to update factions and units to a new edition making them obsolete.

All kinds of shit happens like this because of the way they run the game, and I think that's intentional.

I knew THAC0 wasn't coming back, but it's nice to hear.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;514697Because until WotC gets off the supplement-burnout track, they're never going to find a stable business model.

Honestly, the thing I'm more worried about is whether 5E will have a stable rules model. So far, R&D has been suspiciously quiet about an online database which quickly replaces the utility of the core books and supplements one bought just a week ago thanks to an ever new stream of 'updates'. Remember, as late as 2011, when 5E was already being developed, WotC saw fit to mess up an entire PH 1 class they released in 2008, for reasons that will never be known. (They ran an entire podcast to explain their reasons, but it was just silly.)

What needs to die is the kind of culture that is lambasted here. During 4E, WotC catered to players who 'asked the Sage' rather than got it sorted with their DM, and that's detrimental to everyone, because as soon as 'the Sage' (here: DDI) starts to change the rules for everyone then even DMs whose player hadn't asked the Sage are circumvented ('this is what DDI says now').

For my home games it's never been a problem when I DM, but then I also play in other people's campaigns where the DDI/core book confusion flares up every now and then ('so which version of feat x or class y are we using?').

Quote from: CRKrueger;514323Keep in mind, the terms Gamist, Simulationist and Narrativist pre-date Edwards.  All he did was take the useful concepts and fuck them up.  Someone could invent a time machine, go back and turn Edwards away from gaming and we'd still use those terms, only people wouldn't associate them with the co-opted version.

Hmm, dunno. The Black Death of the XIV Century pre-dated the plague of 1666, but I don't think that those living in the latter era would have been happy to return to the former.

Quote from: Reckall;515077Hmm, dunno. The Black Death of the XIV Century pre-dated the plague of 1666, but I don't think that those living in the latter era would have been happy to return to the former.

Your metaphor is either unclear or you're ignorant. Please elucidate.

Quote from: Blackhand;514666Please tell me what the fucking problem is, other than they published 4e in the first place?

"Other than that Mrs. Lincoln..."

Quote from: Justin Alexander;515079Your metaphor is either unclear or you're ignorant. Please elucidate.

Sure: you fumbled two consecutive comprehension rolls.

Quote from: RandallS;514650I have no real idea how it became so noticeable given that even Gygax could not instill the "must play RAW or you aren't really playing the game" idea in even a sizable minority back when AD&D 1e was THE GAME and he was it's voice. I can't see any major advantage to playing RAW in a RPG as changing rules as needed allows the GM to customize the game for the specific needs of the players at the table and whatever setting and adventures the GM creates.  Note: It is an advantage for organized/tournament play, of course, but I have zero interest in organized play or RPG tournaments -- nor do most of the people I know or have known over the years.  Even the few people I know who played in "living campaigns" or in convention tournaments seldom played RAW at their "home campaigns."

I think the Cult of RAW has gained traction because organised play firstly seems more common now, but also seems to be being used by the D&D designers as their testbed and feedback loop to an increasing degree, as the organised play players are the ones they can easily reach out to.

Hence things like all the attempt to patch Polymorph in the 3.5e era, which 80%+ of their player base probably didn't even know was happening.

Quote from: Grymbok;515094I think the Cult of RAW has gained traction because organised play firstly seems more common now, but also seems to be being used by the D&D designers as their testbed and feedback loop to an increasing degree, as the organised play players are the ones they can easily reach out to.

Hence things like all the attempt to patch Polymorph in the 3.5e era, which 80%+ of their player base probably didn't even know was happening.

Yeah but there's something beyond even that.

I've seen complaints that a power is useless, because of poor wording in a legalistic sense, when at the same time, the same person is claiming that it is perfectly clear what the power is supposed to do.  If the latter is the case then what is wrong?

Usually people trot out that Organized players are bound by strict RAW, but I've seen examples of LFR and Encounters DMs stating that even they are not that strict.  Organized play seems to be more a justification offered for a way of thinking, rather than a genuine concern.

It's as if there's a certain subset of gamers that want to view the rules like computer code, they either function or they don't, as if there's a certain comfort in that.  It's certainly necessary for optimization discussion.  What's  the point of coming up with a killer build and posting it on the net go get respect from a community, if you don't have some kind of supposed objectivity against which to measure things.  (And I don't say this to denigrate char-op completely, I've found in the past that there's something addictive about it, in a puzzle solving manner, but in many ways it's almost a separate hobby.  You end up making characters as examples of elegant design or synergies that you have no interest in actually playing).

Quote from: Reckall;515077Hmm, dunno. The Black Death of the XIV Century pre-dated the plague of 1666, but I don't think that those living in the latter era would have been happy to return to the former.

Was the original GNS as terrible as Edward's take on it?

Quote from: Windjammer;515064Honestly, the thing I'm more worried about is whether 5E will have a stable rules model. So far, R&D has been suspiciously quiet about an online database which quickly replaces the utility of the core books and supplements one bought just a week ago thanks to an ever new stream of 'updates'. Remember, as late as 2011, when 5E was already being developed, WotC saw fit to mess up an entire PH 1 class they released in 2008, for reasons that will never be known. (They ran an entire podcast to explain their reasons, but it was just silly.)

This is why (had I liked 4e enough to use it) I would have never allowed the DDI or its character generator at my table.  I need a relatively fixed set of rules (where any changes made are under my control) to be able to run my homebrew settings. I can't have a rules set that changes without my knowledge or a method of character generation that uses rules not under my control. The only way I'd allow such would be if WOTC was paying me a good chunk of money and benefits to constantly rework my world and the PCs/NPCs within it to keep up with their ever-changing rules.

The whole idea of constantly updated rules (which are the only "official" rules) just seems silly if the aim is players playing in home campaigns. It seems more like they wanted the main form of play to be their "organized play". I think this apparent "designed mainly for the needs of organized play" mentality is one of the things that hurt adoption by players who wanted long term home campaigns. 3.x may have problems but the rules and classes did not constantly change at the whim of WOTC -- especially as sometimes that whim seemed to be be based on the need to change old rules not because they had real problems but because they interfered with some new product they wanted to release.

Quote from: Grymbok;515094I think the Cult of RAW has gained traction because organised play firstly seems more common now, but also seems to be being used by the D&D designers as their testbed and feedback loop to an increasing degree, as the organised play players are the ones they can easily reach out to.

You may be right here and as I just implied in another post designing around the needs of "organized play" can be a huge turn-off for player who do not like organized play and prefer GM-designed "home" campaigns. This is even more true if the rules are being changed from month to month based on what is seen in "organized play."