One, I agree with Stuart, the podcast helped put some of this hoopla into a little perspective, and while I know these guys are responsible for making the game so I should take their enthusiasm with a grain of salt, these guys know their stuff, so I can doubt a little less than if it was from Homebrew Game Designer X #1296.

And check Mearls' most recent post:

Quote... I just had one come across my desk. Here I am, sitting at my desk after lunch, thinking about which of my shiny new comics I'm going to read first, when Matt Sernett comes over to my desk. Matt drops an awesome idea on my head involving skills. This is a cool idea, something that in nine months will be loved by everyone who feels that the skill system in 3e didn't do enough.
 
 I open the relevent files that touch on Matt's idea, type in his idea in 22 point font so I don't miss it when I go back to work on that bit, and then carry on.
 
 Now, I have to be coy about the exact nature of the concept. It isn't the kind of thing that will revolutionize D&D, but it's a good, cool, solid idea that makes skills more interesting, more important in combat encounters, and more fun. I can't wait to use it in playtest.

The wild speculator in me says that FtA!'s stunt system may have been found out and adapted by the big boys.

Quote from: JamesVThe wild speculator in me says that FtA!'s stunt system may have been found out and adapted by the big boys.

They could do far worse!

Quote from: Zachary The FirstThey could do far worse!

And that's why I thought of it, I mean right now they have it where some skill may have a specific combat application or you can use aid another, why not canonically consolidate and streamline that up?

Is this where I point out Mearls' own Book of Iron Might let you use skills in combat applications? (Course, that book had its own problems, BID...)

Quote from: Caesar SlaadIs this where I point out Mearls' own Book of Iron Might let you use skills in combat applications? (Course, that book had its own problems, BID...)

Facts? BAH! If I dont' know about it, it don't exist.

Quote from: Caesar SlaadIt would help if you started by not putting words in my mouth. I was suggesting that what he is saying by "things that don't work" is "things that are broken". Not the game as a whole is broken.

The only one putting words in your mouth is you.  This is the exact text to which Warthur referred in the post you quoted:

Quote from: J ArcaneThe fact remains that there's a clear approach of "the game is broken, how do we fix it", instead of "the game is good, how do we make it better",

Now of course, Mearls means "things that are broken" when he says "things that don't work"; that's basic English and virtually all of us are familiar with it, thank you very much.  Did you really think you were enlightening us by pointing that out?

What J Arcane said was very different -- it was, and I quote, "the game is broken".  Now to suggest that Mearls thinks D&D as a game is broken is just stupid, and I say that not as some Mearls fanboy but someone who actually doesn't like Mearls or his work but still is willing to take him at face value when he says he thinks that 3.x, the game upon which virtually his entire career is built, is a great game.  When Warthur challenged anyone to actually back up J Arcane's kookery with a credible argument, you were the first one to actually stick up your hand.  If you didn't want to agree with J Arcane, then you know what you should have done?

You should have stayed the fuck away from the "quote" button.

KoOS

I think that one of the things that made me very cautious was watching that stupid 4e "video" they apparently released at Gencon, the one with the pseudo-french narrator, where they went "through the years" with a gaming group that played all three editions, and made a big point of showing how supposedly all the earlier editions of D&D were plagued with problems that 4e is now going to fix.  That's a deeply stupid way of promoting your game, by claiming that every previous edition (including the one your company came out with and that all your current customers play) all sucked somehow.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditI think that one of the things that made me very cautious was watching that stupid 4e "video" they apparently released at Gencon, the one with the pseudo-french narrator, where they went "through the years" with a gaming group that played all three editions, and made a big point of showing how supposedly all the earlier editions of D&D were plagued with problems that 4e is now going to fix.  That's a deeply stupid way of promoting your game, by claiming that every previous edition (including the one your company came out with and that all your current customers play) all sucked somehow.

RPGPundit

Exactly.

I think the spoofy video had a good heart, but was executed badly.
Making fun of the grappling rules was OK in my book, but the Problems of earlier editions weren´t adressed in a smart manner.

Quote from: RPGPunditI think that one of the things that made me very cautious was watching that stupid 4e "video" they apparently released at Gencon, the one with the pseudo-french narrator, where they went "through the years" with a gaming group that played all three editions, and made a big point of showing how supposedly all the earlier editions of D&D were plagued with problems that 4e is now going to fix.  That's a deeply stupid way of promoting your game, by claiming that every previous edition (including the one your company came out with and that all your current customers play) all sucked somehow.

RPGPundit

Having played in every era depicted in the video, I found myself nodding in amused agreement as the foibles of each edition where highlighted. I didn't think it said all those editions sucked, just that elements of each could be clunky and counterproductive. What i got from it was that they were saying "hey, we know D&D's history and remember the problems each version had, but more importantly, we remember what we loved about each version." I will agree that they didn't spend enough time showing what was lovable about the game throughout the years, but perhaps that was implicit - killing trolls in a heroic fashion was the constant in the video, after all.

I actually kinda enjoyed that video, if only because it featured Chris Perkins in an afro wig, and Regdar hugging the troll.

I'm easy to please, though.

Anyhow, I love D&D3.5. I hated AD&D2. When I was listening to that podcast I totally followed what Noonan was saying. But I still think improvements can be made, so I am excited to see them.


I am pretty happy that every one of these guys is as big a D&D fan as I am.

...Except perhaps Slaviscek.. (who I don't know much about).

Slaviscek has been around forever. Check out his credits.

Quote from: ColonelHardissonHaving played in every era depicted in the video, I found myself nodding in amused agreement as the foibles of each edition where highlighted. I didn't think it said all those editions sucked, just that elements of each could be clunky and counterproductive. What i got from it was that they were saying "hey, we know D&D's history and remember the problems each version had, but more importantly, we remember what we loved about each version." I will agree that they didn't spend enough time showing what was lovable about the game throughout the years, but perhaps that was implicit - killing trolls in a heroic fashion was the constant in the video, after all.

Indeed. It's possible to enjoy something and be aware of it's flaws. Also, the primary method of selling a new edition of anything is by showing how it supersedes its antecedents. They'd be shooting themselves in the foot if they said 3.x was perfect.

The only thing that annoyed me about the video was the implication that it's ridiculous to play without miniatures. I'm really hoping you don't need a battle mat to play 4E.

Based on what we've heard so far I don't think it'll be a requirement, but doubtless the game will be heavily slanted toward their use.

Which is fine with me, as I enjoy using minis. When I don't want the bother it's fairly easy to abstract, anyway.