TheRPGSite

http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/30046093/Mid-September_will_be_the_last_public_playtest_packet

So, the latest playtest packet is what D&D Next is going to be like. I hate it already.

Public playtest that is. I expect there may still be an iteration or two of playtesting given how much of the system is still unrevealed.

Quote from: Skywalker;681859Public playtest that is. I expect there may still be an iteration or two of playtesting given how much of the system is still unrevealed.

I will be curious to see how one gets on to the private playtesting list.

I suspect that those who believe that we've been testing aspects of the system rather than a progression of the system through each playtest and that whatever system D&D 5e will end up being will be wholly different from what we've seen in any single playtest, will be proven correct. Some sort of amalgamation of concepts which I'm hoping will see proper playtesting in the private "beta".

This should be fun.

http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?699248-Sept-2013-Last-DDN-Playtest-Packet

:popcorn:

Quote from: mhensley;681869This should be fun.

http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?699248-Sept-2013-Last-DDN-Playtest-Packet

:popcorn:

I'll summarise it all with one sentence:


WHERE IS YOUR WOTC NOW, BEYOTCHEEEEEEES!

150,000 downloads, and the 4evengers insist that it's a tiny excuse for a playtest.  Jesus fuck my eye Christ.

Quote from: JonWake;681872150,000 downloads, and the 4evengers insist that it's a tiny excuse for a playtest.  Jesus fuck my eye Christ.

Maybe they think that there's several hundred million D&D players out there?

Lol.

Quote from: The_Rooster;681874Maybe they think that there's several hundred million D&D players out there?

Lol.

Or that the six mouthbreathing retards that constantly whine online make up a significant portion of the playerbase.

lol

What I wonder is if the "positive feedback" takes into account the people, who like me, stopped keeping up with the downloads out of disinterest in the direction it was taking.

I'll download the last packet to see where it goes, but I probably won't play it.

Quote from: Monster Manuel;681878I'll download the last packet to see where it goes, but I probably won't play it.

That makes you no different than most of the people railing against Next then ;)

Quote from: mhensley;681869This should be fun.

http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?699248-Sept-2013-Last-DDN-Playtest-Packet

:popcorn:

I think the funniest thing is that all these people whining that it's ending never actually played it anyway over the past year and a half.  After all that time with them saying how horrible it is, maybe WoTC finally just said, "You know what?  Fuck it.  You obviously hate it so much, so we're going to stop giving it to you."

And now they whine because they aren't getting it anymore.  Man, some people...

Quote from: Sacrosanct;681879That makes you no different than most of the people railing against Next then ;)

I'm not really railing against it (any more- I had a few posts where I could be seen as doing so). If others like it, great. I just don't foresee having fun with it.

Quote from: Monster Manuel;681878What I wonder is if the "positive feedback" takes into account the people, who like me, stopped keeping up with the downloads out of disinterest in the direction it was taking.

Honestly, I hope they pay far more attention to forum discussions than they do to the surveys. Those surveys are rubbish. The conversations on forums are far, far, far more informative and useful as feedback for the direction of the design. And I say that full-well knowing that there's a large noise-to-sound ratio in those discussions.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;681879That makes you no different than most of the people railing against Next then ;)

Well said.

The people who are interested in it are the ones providing feedback.  Sitting in the back throwing spitballs doesn't exactly work for feedback.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;681879That makes you no different than most of the people railing against Next then ;)

I have to say, the burgeoning conspiracy theories about the playtest are almost as amusing as the conspiracy theories about the death of 4e.

"No, I heard that only 100 people ever responded favorably to the playtest, so the devs have been secretly importing Chinese gold farmers to fill out surveys. Of COURSE they say people are responding well. They have to, or else they'll get sent back to China!"

It had to happen sooner or later.  

I have been pleasantly surprised before and I wouldn't be unhappy if WotC produced a very good game.  I liked AD&D a lot, and it had limitations in the way it was developed.  Maybe Next has been about exploring ideas and will actually find a decent sweet spot to aim for.  Likely, no.  But a strong D&D isn't a bad thing.

Quote from: flyerfan1991;681883Well said.

The people who are interested in it are the ones providing feedback.  Sitting in the back throwing spitballs doesn't exactly work for feedback.

The first packet had me, hook, line and sinker. From there they gradually lost me. I just wish they'd come up with something that let me give them my money.

Quote from: Monster Manuel;681881I'm not really railing against it (any more- I had a few posts where I could be seen as doing so). If others like it, great. I just don't foresee having fun with it.

What I meant is that by you not playing it, you'd be just like those who are railing against it, because they don't actually play it either.

Not really, because I wouldn't be expending any energy against it.

Edit:

The people railing against it care as much as the people who love it. It's just in the opposite direction.

I'm only mildly disappointed that the game I grew up with won't have a new edition I want to play.

I did rail against 4e (mostly) privately. This is acceptance that it's not likely to be for me. I'm willing to be wrong.

Quote from: Monster Manuel;681890Not really, because I wouldn't be expending any energy against it.

Edit:

The people railing against it care as much as the people who love it. It's just in the opposite direction.

I'm only mildly disappointed that the game I grew up with won't have a new edition I want to play.

I did rail against 4e (mostly) privately. This is acceptance that it's not likely to be for me. I'm willing to be wrong.

Man, my wording must be really off today (entirely plausible).  I meant nothing more than, "Oh, you're not going to play it?  Then you'll have something in common with the usual suspects at TBP who have railed on it the past year or so."

I am still working my way through the August playtest. I haven't been thrilled with the progression and what I am seeing now is questionable, but I will be playing this weekend to see the newest ruleset in action.

HERE YE! HEAR YE!  Let the epic whining begin!!!

Random poster at RPG.net says:

"Its kind of unfortunate. It seems the whole playtest was - I don't know if this is the right words but of the 'alpha' process rather than the 'beta' process"

...oh, I'd agree, 4venger.  I'd definitely say you got alpha'd.

:D

So, can anyone give a quick synopsis about what is certain about 5e from this point?

I lost interest after the second packet.

Quote from: 1989;682026So, can anyone give a quick synopsis about what is certain about 5e from this point?

I lost interest after the second packet.

Its ink is the tears of 4e players.


That's about I know is for sure.

QuotePublic playtesting when you don't tell people what the test is for ("Feel" being both nebulous and something that varies from group to group) may not work. Public playtesting when you have testable goals that people understand and a feedback system where results are reported in a form that actually tells you something about what happens (rather then what people "feel" about it) are a different matter.

Someone at TBP has never undertaken a qualitative research project, or has any idea of how to effectively slice the data into meaningful chunks.

Those things are hideously nebulous, and most likely to make the teeth of 4vengers itch like crazy.

Still, we wait and see.

Quote from: BarefootGaijin;682038Someone at TBP has never undertaken a qualitative research project, or has any idea of how to effectively slice the data into meaningful chunks.

Those things are hideously nebulous, and most likely to make the teeth of 4vengers itch like crazy.

Still, we wait and see.

Most of them haven't done any professional testing.  From day 1, they keep saying the test fails because it doesn't give them what they want.  That's not the point of testing.  The point of testing is to see if it's working how it was designed, not how you personally want it.

I'll give you an example.  The whole DC debacle about a month or so ago.  They kept crying that the math was broken because a high level character shouldn't have a chance at failing at something like a tightrope walk.  Nothing in the math was broken.  The DC system worked great.  The only issue was whether or not your personal preference of what the DC should be for a tightrope act.

I think the usual suspects over there seem to think their subjectivity means objectivity to everyone else.

Quote from: 1989;682026So, can anyone give a quick synopsis about what is certain about 5e from this point?

I lost interest after the second packet.

The past edition it seems to have the most in common with, is 2nd edition.

Quote from: Mistwell;682086The past edition it seems to have the most in common with, is 2nd edition.

Well, you know that's got to be good, then.

2e victorious!

Quote from: Mistwell;682086The past edition it seems to have the most in common with, is 2nd edition.

It felt more like Basic to me, as a whole (except for things like combined class/race).

Quote from: 1989;682098Well, you know that's got to be good, then.

2e victorious!

Wow! That happens to be my edition of choice!

Do we still have the stupid 2d20 system advantage/disadvantage crap and the fighter action dice or whatever?

Quote from: 1989;682103Do we still have the stupid 2d20 system advantage/disadvantage crap and the fighter action dice or whatever?

Advantage/Disadvantage is still there, though it seems to come up less now.

Action dice are gone, though one choice for Fighter has something somewhat similar (but much more focused).

Quote from: Mistwell;682110Advantage/Disadvantage is still there, though it seems to come up less now.

Action dice are gone, though one choice for Fighter has something somewhat similar (but much more focused).

Sounds like I could play this. It's a compromise, but what were we expecting, really?

That some have compared it to 2e reassures me.

We've got the grid combat out of the picture, so as long as they don't force-feed us a bunch of dissociated mechanics, and dungeonpunk artwork, we should be good to roll, eh?

Quote from: 1989;682163Sounds like I could play this. It's a compromise, but what were we expecting, really?

That some have compared it to 2e reassures me.

We've got the grid combat out of the picture, so as long as they don't force-feed us a bunch of dissociated mechanics, and dungeonpunk artwork, we should be good to roll, eh?

Some have complained about dissociated mechanics in the most recent playtest. I forget the specifics.

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;682169Some have complained about dissociated mechanics in the most recent playtest. I forget the specifics.

Sigh.

Quote from: 1989;682173Sigh.

Before reacting, you should ask him what they are.

Quote from: Skywalker;681859Public playtest that is. I expect there may still be an iteration or two of playtesting given how much of the system is still unrevealed.

Mearls said they are several packets ahead of whatever snippets are given in the public stuff. Besides all this means is that all playtesting will be completely internal. Not that most the stuff they released publicly will even be in the game most likely.

That was more for public relations and just to engage the playerbase while they were working on the nuts and bolts of the published version. Whatever we see next year will likely be something very different than what they have shown publicly.

Quote from: 1989;682026So, can anyone give a quick synopsis about what is certain about 5e from this point?

It is certain that at least 50% of players who love Edition X will not play 5e.

Quote from: Marleycat;682182Mearls said they are several packets ahead of whatever snippets are given in the public stuff.

Do you have a link to that? That's kinda horrifying if Mearls is saying that the playtest is just a jackoff.

Quote from: Spinachcat;682194Do you have a link to that? That's kinda horrifying if Mearls is saying that the playtest is just a jackoff.

Doesn't mean it's a waste, just that they continue iterating even while us grubby peons paw over it.

Most of the data is still probably useful, as the design won't have dramatically veered off *that* quickly.  It's only a waste if it's radically different.

It's funny, everyone I've spoken to in person compares 5e to a different edition.

I'm not sure what those 'dissociated mechanics' are. There aren't any major issues that haven't been issues since Gary rolled his first d20.

Quote from: Marleycat;682182Mearls said they are several packets ahead of whatever snippets are given in the public stuff. Besides all this means is that all playtesting will be completely internal. Not that most the stuff they released publicly will even be in the game most likely.

That was more for public relations and just to engage the playerbase while they were working on the nuts and bolts of the published version. Whatever we see next year will likely be something very different than what they have shown publicly.

I suspect they did want to get some feedback on borderline mechanics, and I would be very unhappy if they did not use the playtest to pick up the worst mistakes.

It's weird that people think that a public playtest would basically be in the format of - "Here's the complete rules as they lie, see how it works for you." If I were designing a massive playtest, I'd do it fairly similarly to how WotC has done it: you are not updating each iteration of the rules based on customer feedback, but instead you are releasing numerous variants and seeing what works and what doesn't, and getting feedback on each of those parts. For instance, the release without skills might be to see how the game runs without them for module design, rather than reflecting a design decision at that time. Take the feedback, see what people like/dislike, figure out a package that hits the most positives and the least negatives, do a real playtest internally, polish and produce it.

Quote from: JonWake;682220It's funny, everyone I've spoken to in person compares 5e to a different edition.

I'm not sure what those 'dissociated mechanics' are. There aren't any major issues that haven't been issues since Gary rolled his first d20.

Same here.  I figure that if everyone thinks it's a different edition, then it in fact is mission accomplished in regards to pulling stuff from each edition.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;682226Same here.  I figure that if everyone thinks it's a different edition, then it in fact is mission accomplished in regards to pulling stuff from each edition.

And it makes all the right people crazy.  I just read an illuminating post where one of the great anti-5e trumpeters revealed that the playtest was a conspiracy on the scale of the Moon landing hoax.  
(http://24.media.tumblr.com/883fc24d94d20785b8d08a5d50689c7b/tumblr_mlwdpj3Je51s3qqquo1_400.gif)

Quote from: JonWake;682232And it makes all the right people crazy.  I just read an illuminating post where one of the great anti-5e trumpeters revealed that the playtest was a conspiracy on the scale of the Moon landing hoax.  
(http://24.media.tumblr.com/883fc24d94d20785b8d08a5d50689c7b/tumblr_mlwdpj3Je51s3qqquo1_400.gif)

no way...

Quote from: Sacrosanct;682236no way...

I know, right?
Did you know that (according to lokaire) they couldn't have taken film on the moon because space radiation would erase it?  TRU FAX

I'm pretty sure the mods deleted the post, but WOW. Just WOW.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;682226Same here.  I figure that if everyone thinks it's a different edition, then it in fact is mission accomplished in regards to pulling stuff from each edition.

Is it mission accomplished if it only seems to remind them of the (in their opinion) bullshit parts of random editions?

Quote from: LibraryLass;682241Is it mission accomplished if it only seems to remind them of the (in their opinion) bullshit parts of random editions?

When it's the same dozen people who've been whining about the game since it was announced?

Yeah, not too worried about that.

When I talk to actual, real people, the impression is positive.

Quote from: JonWake;682242When it's the same dozen people who've been whining about the game since it was announced?

Yeah, not too worried about that.

When I talk to actual, real people, the impression is positive.

Its been the same 12 people defending it since the beginning. There really isn't much traffic in that forum anymore either, I remember when threads went 1000+ posts daily.

The actual real people I talk to range from 'meh' to 'kill it with fire'.

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;682332Its been the same 12 people defending it since the beginning. There really isn't much traffic in that forum anymore either, I remember when threads went 1000+ posts daily.

The actual real people I talk to range from 'meh' to 'kill it with fire'.

Which explains why whenever you start one of your rants on the WOTC forums, you are quickly shouted down as just whining yet again with no legitimate content for your complaints.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;682333Which explains why whenever you start one of your rants on the WOTC forums, you are quickly shouted down as just whining yet again with no legitimate content for your complaints.

I complain that 5E doesn't do any of things 4E did that I liked. Am I wrong?

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;682336I complain that 5E doesn't do any of things 4E did that I liked. Am I wrong?

No, you complain that 5e doesn't do anything like 4e, period.  And you are wrong.  As keeps getting pointed out to you over and over.

Look dude, there's a reason why every time you go on one of your rants there, people call you out on it.  You have a reputation of being a spiteful whiner complaining about things that aren't necessarily true just because your panties are in a wad.  How do you think that happened?  There's also a reason why the mods keep closing your threads.  Because you're saying the same thing, over and over and over again, every day.

Put on your big boy pants and get over it.

4e is bad. Really bad. Worst D&D ever. Complete failure. Publisher recanted it. That's how bad.

From now to the future, having liked, owned, and played 4e will mark any gamer as someone to avoid.

It will be the litmus test for potential recruits to game groups everywhere:

"What did you think of 4e?"

"I mostly liked it."

"Yeah, sorry, our gaming group is pretty full, right now. Check back at another time."

Quote from: 1989;6823424e is bad. Really bad. Worst D&D ever. Complete failure. Publisher recanted it. That's how bad.

From now to the future, having liked, owned, and played 4e will mark any roleplayer as someone to avoid.

It will be the litmus test for potential recruits to game groups everywhere:

"What did you think of 4e?"

"I mostly liked it."

"Yeah, sorry, our gaming group is pretty full, right now. Check back at another time."

That would really be your loss then.  I've actually played with real people in real life who liked 4e.  They liked other editions too.  People can like more than one edition.  And we all got along fine with those people.

It's just the 4vengers who you need to avoid.  The ones who declare 4e to be the best EVAR and anything else sucks.

I don't think 4e was a terrible game.  I think it was a terrible version of D&D and would have been a better game without the brand name and the baggage.  It might have even gone on to be a contender for the top spot given that WotC would have just found another way drop the ball.  But it fundamentally altered D&D while claiming to be D&D and didn't get to enter the market on its own merits.

It does have it's upsides as a failed product.  For instance, people like myself will no longer be able to say that you could print "Dungeons & Dragons" on a packet of used toilet paper and hold the top spot in the market.  It puts the nail in the lid of the concept that you can change the game entirely and people won't care as long as there are mind flayers and beholders to smite.  I haven't gone on about buying D&D and Rolemaster and republishing Rolemaster with the title AD&D for a while now :D  But then, my devotion to Rolemaster is pretty much a dead thing at this point.

Quote from: David Johansen;682360I don't think 4e was a terrible game.  I think it was a terrible version of D&D and would have been a better game without the brand name and the baggage.

Exactly.  Love or hate D&D as a game, there are certain things that made it what it was.  When you turn all of that on its head and effectively rewrite a completely different game, it no longer feels like D&D to me.  That, IMO, is one of the biggest flaws of 4e.  Sure, might be a great tactical RPG on it's own right, but it never had the D&D feel that made D&D what it was for 30 years prior.

4E is a fine game but it not D&D. The best part of the design is how they took some of the presentation of Magic the Gathering to make the tactical detail approachable to just about any gamer regardless of skill level.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;682376Exactly.  Love or hate D&D as a game, there are certain things that made it what it was.  When you turn all of that on its head and effectively rewrite a completely different game, it no longer feels like D&D to me.  That, IMO, is one of the biggest flaws of 4e.  Sure, might be a great tactical RPG on it's own right, but it never had the D&D feel that made D&D what it was for 30 years prior.

Quote from: estar;6825784E is a fine game but it not D&D. The best part of the design is how they took some of the presentation of Magic the Gathering to make the tactical detail approachable to just about any gamer regardless of skill level.

I don't entirely disagree, but I note that all of this applies just as much to 3e as it does to 4e.

Quote from: soviet;682614I don't entirely disagree, but I note that all of this applies just as much to 3e as it does to 4e.

Not really.  3e still had vancian magic.  3e still had mundane classes doing relatively mundane abilities not having fighters being able to replicate spells (a common point that 4e fans like to bring up when talking about how Next sucks because it doesn't allow fighters to replicate spells.)  3e did not have per-encounter or at wills.  It was still very much on the per day scale that all previous editions had.

3e was "take D&D and turn all the stats up to 11!"

4e was "rewrite the entire game at a core level."

Quote from: Sacrosanct;682670not having fighters being able to replicate spells

But 4e hasn't got that either.

The new L&L is up and 4vengers are pitching a fit and accusing Mearls of fudging all the playtest feedback because he hates Christmas and kicks puppies.

Also this:

Quote from: MearlsI also believe that D&D had wandered away from what players are looking for from it.

It's like beautiful music to my ears.

Quote from: LibraryLass;682869But 4e hasn't got that either.

So, you haven't read it.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;682670Not really.  3e still had vancian magic.  3e still had mundane classes doing relatively mundane abilities not having fighters being able to replicate spells (a common point that 4e fans like to bring up when talking about how Next sucks because it doesn't allow fighters to replicate spells.)  3e did not have per-encounter or at wills.  It was still very much on the per day scale that all previous editions had.

In particular, I'd say the only truly radical additions that 3E made to the system - skills and feats - were quite plainly laid over the top of a rules system which was fairly true to previous editions. Yes, you had stuff like unified experience tables and ascended AC and the like, but most of that was mere tweaks which could equally well have been applied to previous editions without radically changing the game experience.

3E was an evolutionary, additive change, 4E was a revolutionary change which altered the very core of the system.

The daft thing is, I think there was definitely a scope for a game which took the new design approach that was reflected in some aspects of 3E but dissociated the new ideas from the D&D sacred cows - that's basically what True20 did, but they went in the direction of being more rules light and less grid-focused and 4E strikes me as being a decent stab at the same in a more rules-bound and grid-locked direction.

Quote from: Piestrio;682873It's like beautiful music to my ears.

Mearls has consistently talked the right talk as far as I'm concerned - I'm waiting on the final product to see whether he can walk the walk though.

Quote from: 1989;6823424e is bad. Really bad. Worst D&D ever. Complete failure. Publisher recanted it. That's how bad.

From now to the future, having liked, owned, and played 4e will mark any gamer as someone to avoid.

It will be the litmus test for potential recruits to game groups everywhere:

"What did you think of 4e?"

"I mostly liked it."

"Yeah, sorry, our gaming group is pretty full, right now. Check back at another time."

I wouldn't go that far. 4e may not be my game of choice either, but I won't disqualify someone just for liking the game. That's overkill, I think.

Quote from: Piestrio;682873The new L&L is up and 4vengers are pitching a fit and accusing Mearls of fudging all the playtest feedback because he hates Christmas and kicks puppies.

Also this:



It's like beautiful music to my ears.

What some people seem unable to comprehend is that maybe their tastes are in the minority as far as the playtest feedback goes.

Seems that 20 or 30 people who scream the loudest aren't representative of the hobby as a whole - who would've thought it? ;)

Quote from: Exploderwizard;682923So, you haven't read it.

Okay, okay, they can take Ritual Casting same as anyone else, but that's clearly not what's being said here.

Quote from: LibraryLass;682946Okay, okay, they can take Ritual Casting same as anyone else, but that's clearly not what's being said here.

Actually it is.  That part where I said 4e fighters could replicate spells?  That was taken directly from TCO and Lokaire from the WoTC forums.  Specifically in the context that Next is screwing 4e playstyle because the Next fighter, even the gladiator who does have plenty of maneuvers and abilities, cannot "replicate the spells of a cleric or mage like the 4e fighter could."

Quote from: Sacrosanct;682670having fighters being able to replicate spells (a common point that 4e fans like to bring up when talking about how Next sucks because it doesn't allow fighters to replicate spells.)

Quote from: LibraryLass;682869But 4e hasn't got that either.

That's really pretty disingenuous. 4E Fighters have abilities that are mechanically indistinguishable from those of Wizards. Their abilities are also impossible to explain, in game, through mundane means. Sure, they're not called "Spells," but what's the difference?

Quote from: LibraryLass;682946Okay, okay, they can take Ritual Casting same as anyone else, but that's clearly not what's being said here.

Outside of rituals there are powers such as come and get it, that operate like powerful magical effects but are labelled as being from a "martial power source" whatever the fuck thats supposed to mean.

Constructs, mindless undead, oozes, whatever are compelled by some force to race to the tanking fighter and engage in melee. There is no game world level satifactory explanation for this. It is a power that just works because the rules say so.

That is a mind controlling magical power so awesome that a mind isn't even required for it to work.:p

Quote from: 1989;6823424e is bad. Really bad. Worst D&D ever. Complete failure. Publisher recanted it. That's how bad.

From now to the future, having liked, owned, and played 4e will mark any gamer as someone to avoid.

It will be the litmus test for potential recruits to game groups everywhere:

"What did you think of 4e?"

"I mostly liked it."

"Yeah, sorry, our gaming group is pretty full, right now. Check back at another time."

LOL you realize the first edition to be used as such a litmus test by intolerant gamers was 2e, right?  That the common perception of 2e (which I disagree with btw) by most D&D players is that 2e was awful, and included it in the joke of "even numbered editions suck, like 2e and 4e, it's the opposite of the Star Trek movies"?

Yeah you probably do realize that, as a target of that derision for decades, as so you're probably trying to bully back at 4e fans in revenge for the bullying you got from 1e and 3e fans.  Have fun with that, I hope it provides the catharsis you seem to need! :)

Quote from: Mistwell;682969LOL you realize the first edition to be used as such a litmus test by intolerant gamers was 2e, right?  That the common perception of 2e (which I disagree with btw) by most D&D players is that 2e was awful, and included it in the joke of "even numbered editions suck, like 2e and 4e, it's the opposite of the Star Trek movies"?

Yeah you probably do realize that, as a target of that derision for decades, as so you're probably trying to bully back at 4e fans in revenge for the bullying you got from 1e and 3e fans.  Have fun with that, I hope it provides the catharsis you seem to need! :)

The derision for 2E is about the watered down approach TSR took the game at that time and the poor quality of a lot of supplements. The 2E system is almost indistinguishable from 1E.

Difference is:

- people still played 2e, though they complained about some things (demons/devils/assasins/gary is gone)

- people didn't play 4e. They left. In large numbers.

My reading of AD&D 2e was that it was considerably better organized than AD&D 1e and had better designed options for character customization. However my friends viewed it not being different enough to warrant switching from their AD&D 1e books so we never got off the ground with it.

I thought the wealth of different settings to be a good thing at the time.

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;682939I wouldn't go that far. 4e may not be my game of choice either, but I won't disqualify someone just for liking the game. That's overkill, I think.

It's juvenile as hell. Who would even want to play with a group that would exclude someone based on some other unrelated game they happen to like?  Unreal.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;682343It's just the 4vengers who you need to avoid.  The ones who declare 4e to be the best EVAR and anything else sucks.

In fact it sounds a lot like these guys.

Quote from: Raven;682995In fact it sounds a lot like these guys.

Oh, it sounds exactly like 1989

Quote from: One Horse Town;682942What some people seem unable to comprehend is that maybe their tastes are in the minority as far as the playtest feedback goes.

Seems that 20 or 30 people who scream the loudest aren't representative of the hobby as a whole - who would've thought it? ;)

Man, that should be this site's unofficial motto.

Quote from: Bobloblah;682951That's really pretty disingenuous. 4E Fighters have abilities that are mechanically indistinguishable from those of Wizards. Their abilities are also impossible to explain, in game, through mundane means. Sure, they're not called "Spells," but what's the difference?

So you would say then that in 3e a lot of spells are mechanically indistinguishable from traps, yes? And that skill use is mechanically indistinguishable from combat? You roll a d20 against a DC and some shit happens, what's the difference?

Also the fighter's abilities are not impossible to explain. Even the more abstract ones like Come and Get It just require a bit of imagination. This is a hobby about imagination, after all.

Some of the loudest 4vengers themselves were the ones who said that fighter abilities replicate spells.  That isn't a phrase us "haters" came up with.  Don't try to convince us we're wrong; it's not our phrase.  Talk to people like TCO.  He's the one who said it.

Well no, if someone repeats an argument here that's based on bullshit, they should expect to have to defend it here as well. 'Someone who likes 4e said it another site' is kind of a weak explanation TBH

Quote from: soviet;683010Well no, if someone repeats an argument here that's based on bullshit, they should expect to have to defend it here as well. 'Someone who likes 4e said it another site' is kind of a weak explanation TBH

Sorry, gotta throw the bullshit flag here.

I don't play 4e.  So when the biggest fans of 4e say something about 4e, I should be able to take their word for it, no?  They are the biggest 4e fans, so they should know more about the game than anyone else.

The alternative is that these biggest fans of 4e must be liars, willing to make up things that aren't true just to bash another edition.


So which one soviet?

Why are we still talking about a shitty game that was nearly universally hated by D&D players and killed by the publisher after a desperate scramble to get older players back barely a couple years into its run?

It's dead guys.

It's irrelevant.

Dustbin of history and all that.

Quote from: Piestrio;683016Why are we still talking about a shitty game that was nearly universally hated by D&D players and killed by the publisher after a desperate scramble to get older players back barely a couple years into its run?

It's dead guys.

It's irrelevant.

Dustbin of history and all that.

I agree, 3e was terrible.

Quote from: Piestrio;683016Why are we still talking about a shitty game that was nearly universally hated by D&D players and killed by the publisher after a desperate scramble to get older players back barely a couple years into its run?

It's dead guys.

It's irrelevant.

Dustbin of history and all that.

Agreed.

Shut the fuck up on this one already, 4rons.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;683013Sorry, gotta throw the bullshit flag here.

I don't play 4e.  So when the biggest fans of 4e say something about 4e, I should be able to take their word for it, no?  They are the biggest 4e fans, so they should know more about the game than anyone else.

The alternative is that these biggest fans of 4e must be liars, willing to make up things that aren't true just to bash another edition.


So which one soviet?

That's crazy. There are idiots on all sides of the spectrum, I'm not going to sit here and defend every batshit thing that gets said by a pro-4e person or whatever. I suggest that taking up other people's points and repeating them in other company without any knowledge of how correct they may be, is not a great idea whatever the topic/edition. People should be able to defend/explain the things they say if they want to be taken seriously.

Quote from: jeff37923;683024Agreed.

Shut the fuck up on this one already, 4rons.

What they should do, is run a big kickstarter to rip off the fanbase for a lot of money and then release a giant book full of unplaytested and unedited stream of consciousness rules blurb 'because all rules are optional anyway'.

You'd invest in that wouldn't you Jeff?

Quote from: soviet;683028What they should do, is run a big kickstarter to rip off the fanbase for a lot of money and then release a giant book full of unplaytested and unedited stream of consciousness rules blurb 'because all rules are optional anyway'.

You'd invest in that wouldn't you Jeff?

Awww, you're so cute when your nerve gets struck.

Maybe if you played games more and went on forum crusades less, you wouldn't have such a thin skin.

Quote from: soviet;683023I agree, 3e was terrible.

Well. I'd agree, but that particular barb doesn't quite fit 3e.

Quote from: jeff37923;683032Awww, you're so cute when your nerve gets struck.

Maybe if you played games more and went on forum crusades less, you wouldn't have such a thin skin.

kettle

I enjoy 1E and 4E.

Can't find anyone that will play 1E, flooded with people that will play 3X and 4E.


Makes me sad :)

Quote from: soviet;683026That's crazy. There are idiots on all sides of the spectrum, I'm not going to sit here and defend every batshit thing that gets said by a pro-4e person or whatever. I suggest that taking up other people's points and repeating them in other company without any knowledge of how correct they may be, is not a great idea whatever the topic/edition. People should be able to defend/explain the things they say if they want to be taken seriously.

When an expert of a system says that this is how the system works, it is not crazy to take their word for it.  Hell, courts rely on expert testimony to base rulings on; it's not some out of wack philosophy here.  And since I don't play 4e, why should I make myself an expert on it rather than just listen to the person who is the expert?

Listen to yourself man.

Quote from: Bill;683036I enjoy 1E and 4E.

Can't find anyone that will play 1E, flooded with people that will play 3X and 4E.


Makes me sad :)

Heh. I like 2e/1e and 4e. I think I like them because they are their own games and largely succeed at what they are trying to do. Whereas to me 3e feels like a failed attempt towards achieving something like 4e, and Next is just a half hearted combination of snippets from all the editions.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;683040When an expert of a system says that this is how the system works, it is not crazy to take their word for it.  Hell, courts rely on expert testimony to base rulings on; it's not some out of wack philosophy here.  And since I don't play 4e, why should I make myself an expert on it rather than just listen to the person who is the expert?

Listen to yourself man.

All kinds of people claim to be experts on things. Doesn't make them right. I'm sure that somewhere out there right now there is a self-professed expert on *your favourite game* saying some random, weird bullshit that isn't based on reality. Doesn't make him right either.

Quote from: soviet;683051All kinds of people claim to be experts on things. Doesn't make them right. I'm sure that somewhere out there right now there is a self-professed expert on *your favourite game* saying some random, weird bullshit that isn't based on reality. Doesn't make him right either.

so then the other option must be the right one.  These are the 4e experts, not just one random guy.  if you can't take the word of a group of people who are experts of a particular edition, then they must all be lying bastards.

Thanks for clarifying that.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;683054so then the other option must be the right one.  These are the 4e experts, not just one random guy.  if you can't take the word of a group of people who are experts of a particular edition, then they must all be lying bastards.

Thanks for clarifying that.

It's just that any potentially negative thought about 4e must be purged by any means necessary.

4e is perfect and its purity must be defended.

For example I have a good buddy who likes 4e and has said, and this is a direct quote, "I like that 4e feels like World of Warcraft"

That would get him tarred and feather by 4vengers because its not an acceptable opinion. It would probably create cries of some sort of false flag 'attack' from their addled minds.

Quote from: Piestrio;683056It's just that any potentially negative thought about 4e must be purged by any means necessary.

4e is perfect and its purity must be defended.

Exactly. Any discussion of 4e that falls short of utter condemnation is simply moral cowardice.

Quote from: soviet;683058Exactly. Any discussion of 4e that falls short of utter condemnation is simply moral cowardice.

HA! We've had many good conversations about the strengths of 4e on this board. Try again.

Quote from: Piestrio;683056For example I have a good buddy who likes 4e and has said, and this is a direct quote, "I like that 4e feels like World of Warcraft"

Of course you do. I have a good buddy who likes DC adventures and Pathfinder - he's an expert on them really - and this is a direct quote, "Only cunts play them".

:rolleyes:

And people wonder where the term 4ron came from.

Quote from: soviet;683061Of course you do. I have a good buddy who likes DC adventures and Pathfinder - he's an expert on them really - and this is a direct quote, "Only cunts play them".

:rolleyes:

Thanks for proving my point.

Quote from: Piestrio;683060HA! We've had many good conversations about the strengths of 4e on this board. Try again.

Listen, I like 4e, but I agree it has flaws and in fact I like TSR editions more. That doesn't mean that every criticism of it ever is valid though.

Quote from: Piestrio;683056It's just that any potentially negative thought about 4e must be purged by any means necessary.

4e is perfect and its purity must be defended..

OH man, you don't even KNOW the level of irony the 4vengers have over at the official WoTC forums.  Note, I'm not talking about 4e fans; many are perfectly reasonable.

But you have guys like TCO saying that 5e will fail because they way it's designed will split the user base because a "reasonable" person will just stick with their current edition.

Of course the fact that that is exactly what happened with 4e is completely lost on him.

What I've found is that this is excused by, "Only the unreasonable people didn't move to 4e because 4e is objectively better than any other game."

Or in other words, "We don't hold ourselves to the same standards as everyone else."

Shocking, I know.

Quote from: soviet;683064Listen, I like 4e, but I agree it has flaws and in fact I like TSR editions more. That doesn't mean that every criticism of it ever is valid though.

You say things like this but you constantly leap to the defence of 4e whenever it's virtue is challenged so please forgive me if I take your protestations with a grain of salt.

The hypocrisy of 4vengers is truly stunning in scope.

4venger, "I like that 4e is a good GAME in it's own right. It puts the G back in RPG"

4venger chorus, "YES! That's awesome!"


Normal person "I don't like 4e, it just feels too 'gamey'"

4venger chorus, "FUCK YOU YOU FUCKING SHITCOCKGROGCUNT!"


4venger "I like that 4e takes it's cues from the modern world and isn't mired in the youth culture of the 80's"

4venger Chorus, "YES! You are great and right!"


Normal person, "I don't like that 4e feels disconnected from it's roots and leans so heavily on modern tropes"

4venger chorus, "AARRRRRRGGGG WHY DO YOU EDITION WAR!!!!!???"

Quote from: 1989;6823424e is bad. Really bad. Worst D&D ever. Complete failure. Publisher recanted it. That's how bad.

From now to the future, having liked, owned, and played 4e will mark any gamer as someone to avoid.

It will be the litmus test for potential recruits to game groups everywhere:

"What did you think of 4e?"

"I mostly liked it."

"Yeah, sorry, our gaming group is pretty full, right now. Check back at another time."

You're just pleased because all of that USED to apply to 2e!

RPGPundit

Quote from: Sacrosanct;682948Actually it is.  That part where I said 4e fighters could replicate spells?  That was taken directly from TCO and Lokaire from the WoTC forums.  Specifically in the context that Next is screwing 4e playstyle because the Next fighter, even the gladiator who does have plenty of maneuvers and abilities, cannot "replicate the spells of a cleric or mage like the 4e fighter could."

And it didn't occur to you that the WOTC boards are full of dribbling retards? Really, I trust their opinions on anything, even games they like, about as much as I trust Jenny McCarthy's opinions on vaccination.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;682953Outside of rituals there are powers such as come and get it, that operate like powerful magical effects but are labelled as being from a "martial power source" whatever the fuck thats supposed to mean.

Constructs, mindless undead, oozes, whatever are compelled by some force to race to the tanking fighter and engage in melee. There is no game world level satifactory explanation for this. It is a power that just works because the rules say so.

That is a mind controlling magical power so awesome that a mind isn't even required for it to work.:p

I'd call it more "narrative handwaving to make this effect work" than magic, but... ehh, I feel like there's generally enough distinct that to say that "indistinguishable from spells" would be exaggeration. Built on the same framework, sure. Identical, not so much. Maybe a bit of a subtle distinction, but I say it's not yet just hair-splitting. Even if you put a fighter and a swordmage (the most similar arcane class, being as it uses weapons and shares the defender role) side by side, they're not going to be doing the same things in the same ways, either mechanically or in terms of flavor.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;683068Or in other words, "We don't hold ourselves to the same standards as everyone else."

Shocking, I know.

Yup. It's the old "4e is EXACTLY LIKE old D&D in EVERY WAY so that there is NO REASON to ever play any other version of the game."

While simultaneously being "SO MUCH BETTER in every way and NOT AT ALL LIKE old D&D which SUCKED in every possible way."

I call it schrodinger's game. It is both 'totally the same game' and 'unlike every other version' depending on the needs of the argument and audience.

Are people still confusing preference for objective good or bad in games?

Game I enjoy = Good game
 Game I do not enjoy = Bad game



Duh!

Quote from: Piestrio;683073Yup. It's the old "4e is EXACTLY LIKE old D&D in EVERY WAY so that there is NO REASON to ever play any other version of the game."

While simultaneously being "SO MUCH BETTER in every way and NOT AT ALL LIKE old D&D which SUCKED in every possible way."

I call it schrodinger's game. It is both 'totally the same game' and 'unlike every other version' depending on the needs of the argument and audience.

Yeah but there are always people like this in any argument. It's not a '4e fans' thing.

Quote from: soviet;683076Yeah but there are always people like this in any argument. It's not a '4e fans' thing.

However, it is a 4venger and 4ron thing.

Quote from: 1989;682983Difference is:

- people still played 2e, though they complained about some things (demons/devils/assasins/gary is gone)

- people didn't play 4e. They left. In large numbers.

Yeah you keep telling yourself that.  Nobody left 2e to play 1e or 3e or other games.  They all just kept playing 2e, even when other options presented themselves.  2e is uber popular!

1989, more people play 4e, than play 2e, right now.  You'd have to be a giant homer (to borrow a sports term) of epic proportions to believe otherwise.  And since both are roughly the same level of "in print" right now as each other, that should tell you that you crowing about how awesome koolio 2e is and how 4e suxor looks pretty silly.  You're a fan of the one edition of D&D which is roughly equally embarrassing in the amount of distaste it seems to generate amongst some fans.  D&D players fled 2e in droves, much like they fled 4e in droves.  In other words, if you view 4e as shit for people leaving it to play something else, then your shit stinks too.

Mind you, I'm not nearly as comfortable with "narrative handwaving to make this effect work" as I was in, say, 2009.

Quote from: LibraryLass;683072And it didn't occur to you that the WOTC boards are full of dribbling retards?

And it didn't occur to you that these were the same people on here, and TBP, and every other forum that made these claims?  They happened to make them on WotC forums, but they are the same people as every other forum.


Seriously, I really don't get the aversion to holding the 4e experts accountable for their statements.  They are the ones that made them, not me.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;683007Some of the loudest 4vengers themselves were the ones who said that fighter abilities replicate spells.  That isn't a phrase us "haters" came up with.  Don't try to convince us we're wrong; it's not our phrase.  Talk to people like TCO.  He's the one who said it.

So let me see if I understand your position here.  Some jackass said something stupid, claiming his views were representative of all fans of that game.  And you think he is a jackass too, and would not put much respect into his RPG views in general.  But, because it satisfies your current admittedly biased position on a particular issue, you will put 100% full faith and credit into the words of the jackass you previously wouldn't trust as far as you could throw him?

Yeah, fuck that Sacrosanct.  That's a load of bullshit.  Fighters did not replicate spells.  If some jackass said they did, he's wrong.  He's not more trustworthy for this topic because it feeds your admitted bias, any more than he's more trustworthy on a topic where he runs counter to your bias.

Quote from: Piestrio;683016Why are we still talking about a shitty game that was nearly universally hated by D&D players and killed by the publisher after a desperate scramble to get older players back barely a couple years into its run?

It's dead guys.

It's irrelevant.

Dustbin of history and all that.

LOL.

Nearly universally hated by D&D players?

Where do you get this shit? All those thousands of DDI subscribes don't count now?  Come on man, lots of players liked 4e.  It being "not profitable enough for Hasbro" is not the same as "nobody liked it".  Which you know.  You were, I assume, just trolling.

Quote from: Mistwell;683091LOL.

Nearly universally hated by D&D players?

I presume he means the old school taliban.

I'm finding myself agreeing somewhat with Mistwell...someone check if the stars are right.

He's correct on that point. 4e was successful by RPG standards, just not successful by Hasbro/WotC standards. It's like saying that Windows Vista didn't sell because it was pulled so quickly - but of course it sold like hot cakes, it's Windows after all, the biggest guy on the OS market, except it did not sell as well, was flawed, and caused enough bad marketing, that it was in the end, pulled quickly for an improved Windows.

And I find  the claims about 4e having stronger presence in Internet than in Real Life ironic, coming from "OSR/Old D&D" players, given how every OSR player and their dog has a blog these days. Both sides dug themselves deep trenches and pretend it's all plains from where they are looking.

And don't get me wrong, I dislike 4e, if only because of that absurd money - grubbing split of core classes into 3 books. Want to convert a druid to new edition? Well tough titties, better fork over that cash.

Quote from: Rincewind1;683096I'm finding myself agreeing somewhat with Mistwell...someone check if the stars are right.

He's correct to a point. 4e was successful by RPG standards, just not successful by Hasbro/WotC standards. It's like saying that Windows Vista didn't sell because it was pulled so quickly - but of course it sold like hot cakes, it's Windows after all, the biggest guy on the OS market, except it did not sell as well, was flawed, and caused enough bad marketing, that it was in the end, pulled quickly for an improved Windows.

Yeah well I just found myself agreeing with Pundit too, so there might be something to your thought about the stars being weirdly aligned.

Quote from: Rincewind1;683096And I find  the claims about 4e having stronger presence in Internet than in Real Life ironic, coming from "OSR/Old D&D" players, given how every OSR player and their dog has a blog these days. Both sides dug themselves deep trenches and pretend it's all plains from where they are looking.

Yep. Popularity is a weak front for OSR fans to fight on. What's the highest selling OSR product? 5,000 copies?

Quote from: Rincewind1;683096And don't get me wrong, I dislike 4e, if only because of that absurd money - grubbing split of core classes into 3 books. Want to convert a druid to new edition? Well tough titties, better fork over that cash.

Actually, I like the idea of splitting classes over multiple books. It means the players aren't all trying to share one book at the table, and if you want to just read up on your chosen class, you can buy a cheaper book and just use that one.

Quote from: Haffrung;683106Actually, I like the idea of splitting classes over multiple books. It means the players aren't all trying to share one book at the table, and if you want to just read up on your chosen class, you can buy a cheaper book and just use that one.

Well, for me the greatest sin was that some of old core classes were put into different books, rather than release the "usuals" in the main PHB.

Quote from: Rincewind1;683110Well, for me the greatest sin was that some of old core classes were put into different books, rather than release the "usuals" in the main PHB.

But they did do that for Essentials - they split up the classes into the four core (fighter, cleric, rogue, wizard), and then four secondary (druid, paladin, ranger, warlock).

I have a feeling Essentials offers some clues to how WotC intends to present Next. The goals are the same - make the game more accessible to new or casual gamers.

Quote from: Mistwell;683089So let me see if I understand your position here.  Some jackass said something stupid, claiming his views were representative of all fans of that game.  And you think he is a jackass too, and would not put much respect into his RPG views in general.  But, because it satisfies your current admittedly biased position on a particular issue, you will put 100% full faith and credit into the words of the jackass you previously wouldn't trust as far as you could throw him?

Yeah, fuck that Sacrosanct.  That's a load of bullshit.  Fighters did not replicate spells.  If some jackass said they did, he's wrong.  He's not more trustworthy for this topic because it feeds your admitted bias, any more than he's more trustworthy on a topic where he runs counter to your bias.

Is reading comprehension a problem here or something?  I didn't say just one guy.  Jesus, Mistwell, I already said this is the argument being presented by a group of people.  The group that defines themselves as 4e experts.

Running counter to my bias?  Dude, I already told you I don't pay 4e.  I don't know what powers do what.  So when a group of self professed 4e experts and defenders say that this is how it works in 4e and this is what they want in 5e in order for them to get the 4e playstyle, I have no reason to automatically assume they are lying.

Sorry, but what you're saying is what's complete bullshit.  Do you not know how normal human interaction works?  If a group of basketball fans who love to play basketball tell me that X is part of basketball, I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt, especially if I don't know anything about basketball.  If they lied about it, then that's their problem, not mine.

Holy fuck..

Quote from: Mistwell;683091LOL.

Nearly universally hated by D&D players?

Where do you get this shit? All those thousands of DDI subscribes don't count now?  Come on man, lots of players liked 4e.  It being "not profitable enough for Hasbro" is not the same as "nobody liked it".  Which you know.  You were, I assume, just trolling.

In my experiance neary everyone that could be described as a "D&D fan" in 2008 was turned off by 4e.

4e drew it's audience largely from 3 sources:

1. New players. This was when D&D could still count in being the first stop for new gamers.

2. The most casual of players who just go along with whatever books come out.

3. People who did not like (or activly disliked) D&D before.

That's what I mean by "D&D players" didn't like it. Circa 2008.

Remember all the talk about "firing the fans"? That didn't come from nowhere.

I like 4e and I've been playing since early second edition.

My group liked 4e and they've all been playing since second edition (with one starting under 1e and another under 3e).

My GM's friend's group who sometimes overlap also like 4e and they've been playing since 2e if not earlier in some cases.

In my experience a lot of the people who have a massive hate of 4e are those who started under 3e.

Quote from: Haffrung;683114But they did do that for Essentials - they split up the classes into the four core (fighter, cleric, rogue, wizard), and then four secondary (druid, paladin, ranger, warlock).

I have a feeling Essentials offers some clues to how WotC intends to present Next. The goals are the same - make the game more accessible to new or casual gamers.

In a lot of ways Essentials was clearly an attempt to try and 'fix' 4e and provide a core they could sell on a long term basis. I also think a lot of the feedback that went into making Essentials informed the starting point for 5e.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;683115Is reading comprehension a problem here or something?  I didn't say just one guy.  Jesus, Mistwell, I already said this is the argument being presented by a group of people.  The group that defines themselves as 4e experts.

Running counter to my bias?  Dude, I already told you I don't pay 4e.  I don't know what powers do what.  So when a group of self professed 4e experts and defenders say that this is how it works in 4e and this is what they want in 5e in order for them to get the 4e playstyle, I have no reason to automatically assume they are lying.

Sorry, but what you're saying is what's complete bullshit.  Do you not know how normal human interaction works?  If a group of basketball fans who love to play basketball tell me that X is part of basketball, I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt, especially if I don't know anything about basketball.  If they lied about it, then that's their problem, not mine.

Holy fuck..

Emphasis mine.

Quote from: soviet;683122Emphasis mine.

Don't be fucking stupid.  Like I said, the alternative is to assume everyone is always lying.

That also includes you, by the way.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;683124Don't be fucking stupid.  Like I said, the alternative is to assume everyone is always lying.

That also includes you, by the way.

'Blindly repeat nonsense that you've found on the internet by people who say they are experts' is not a good strategy. Trying to characterise common sense as 'assuming everyone is lying' is quite a stretch.

Can I assume by the way that you believe that 4e and Dungeon World are both old school games, you fully subscribe to GNS theory, believe that the swine are planning to subvert our schools, and that 9/11 was an inside job?

Quote from: Sacrosanct;683124Don't be fucking stupid.

So much for that.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;683115Is reading comprehension a problem here or something?  I didn't say just one guy.  Jesus, Mistwell, I already said this is the argument being presented by a group of people.  The group that defines themselves as 4e experts.

You named a guy, and then said "others".  Prove it man.  This seems a spurious claim to me.  I am asking you for links.  Find what it is you're talking about.  What was the point of naming a jackass if it wasn't about that jackass?  And who CARES if he calls himself an expert? If I call myself a Traveller expert, would you simply accept that title for me? I can tell you, Jeff would throw a fit if you did.  

That dude is wrong. Fighters couldn't replicate spells.  I strongly suspect you're talking about a specific mechanics argument someone was having, rather than the actual in-game function of some powers.  For example, I suspect it was a specific discussion of mechanics comparisons such as "wizard can cast a melee-ranged attack that does 3d6+[mainstat] damage, vs Fighter who can use a melee-ranged power that makes his attack with his sword do 3d6+[mainstat] damage".  Now, just because the range and number of dice you toss to determine damage are the same DOES NOT MAKE THE FIGHTERS ATTACK THE SAME AS A SPELL.  The resolution mechanics might be similar, but in-game there is a huge role playing difference between casting a spell, and hitting something with your sword.  The mechanics might be the same in any version of D&D, but that never made the sword-hitting actually a spell because the mechanics were the same, before.

QuoteRunning counter to my bias?  Dude, I already told you I don't pay 4e.  I don't know what powers do what.

Yes, your bias is "4e sucks".  

QuoteSo when a group of self professed 4e experts and defenders say that this is how it works in 4e and this is what they want in 5e in order for them to get the 4e playstyle, I have no reason to automatically assume they are lying.

Except for the fact you never trusted them for anything before, but are suddenly trusting them now, because their argument furthers your bias that 4e sucks, and the argument you're making to demonstrate that is, essentially, "4e sucks so much that fighters can replicate spells".

QuoteSorry, but what you're saying is what's complete bullshit.  Do you not know how normal human interaction works?  If a group of basketball fans who love to play basketball tell me that X is part of basketball, I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt, especially if I don't know anything about basketball.  If they lied about it, then that's their problem, not mine.

Holy fuck..

You've NEVER given that particular set of jackasses the benefit of the doubt for anything, right up until now.  It's not bullshit for me to assume the motive for your sudden about-take on trusting their instincts and opinions about RPGs is because for this one issue they happen to further your agenda of demonstrating 4e sucks by conflating fighter powers with spells.  If you're exasperated by us calling you on that, imagine how exasperated we are by seeing you parade a group of jackasses that you and I both agree are jackasses as sudden "experts" in something relating to RPGs.

Quote from: Piestrio;683118In my experiance neary everyone that could be described as a "D&D fan" in 2008 was turned off by 4e.

Oh so you're arguing from the logical fallacy that your experience is representative of the whole.

Well then, now that we've gotten that idiocy out of the way, do you have any actual objective data to back up your claim?

Quote from: Mistwell;683155You named a guy, and then said "others".  Prove it man.  

Read this fucking thread (http://community.wizards.com/dndnext/go/thread/view/75882/30050581/Legends__Lore:_The_Final_Countdown_%28August_19%29) for some examples, you jackass.

When you've got a bunch of 4e fans saying that they feel excluded in Next because Next's fighters don't replicate the spells of mages and clerics like they do in 4e, and explicitly tell you, "This is what 4e style is" when you ask them.

The only bias here is yours, in your steadfast refusal to admit that it possibly can't be the most likely reason, but that I'm somehow being disingenuous.  Christ you moron, it's not even me asking them these questions most of the time.  The 4e crowd is saying this, and I'm at fault for pointing it out?  I don't know if they are right and wrong, and the only solution you and soviet have come up with comes down to "always assume everyone is lying."

How fucking stupid.  I guess I should assume you're a liar when you said you're a lawyer, and that you're full of shit whenever you talk about aspects of the law.

After all, everyone is a liar....

QuoteExcept for the fact you never trusted them for anything before, but are suddenly trusting them now, because their argument furthers your bias that 4e sucks, and the argument you're making to demonstrate that is, essentially, "4e sucks so much that fighters can replicate spells".

Even though I might think they are crybabbies, when they say, "This is how X works in 4e", I have no reason to disbelieve them.  They are two completely different things.  I've never said I don't trust them when it comes down to what's included in 4e.  Once again, that's your bias making shit up.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;683161Read this fucking thread (http://community.wizards.com/dndnext/go/thread/view/75882/30050581/Legends__Lore:_The_Final_Countdown_%28August_19%29) for some examples, you jackass.

When you've got a bunch of 4e fans saying that they feel excluded in Next because Next's fighters don't replicate the spells of mages and clerics like they do in 4e, and explicitly tell you, "This is what 4e style is" when you ask them.

It's a 23 page thread. I've ctrl-F searched the word 'replicate' and I can't find any uses, and on a brief skim I can't find any similar discussions in there either. A more specific link maybe?

Quote from: Mistwell;683158Oh so you're arguing from the logical fallacy that your experience is representative of the whole.

Well then, now that we've gotten that idiocy out of the way, do you have any actual objective data to back up your claim?

Ah the old "I have to shut down this discussion" ploy.

After all none of us can 'prove' anything so nobodies opinion is any more or less valid than anyone else's!

Yay! 4e's virginity is intact for another day!

Quote from: soviet;683120I like 4e and I've been playing since early second edition.

My group liked 4e and they've all been playing since second edition (with one starting under 1e and another under 3e).

My GM's friend's group who sometimes overlap also like 4e and they've been playing since 2e if not earlier in some cases.

In my experience a lot of the people who have a massive hate of 4e are those who started under 3e.

That's weird because I don't know anyone real world that likes 4e that started playing D&D before 2000.  In my experience those that really wanted something like 4e were the younger 30 and under players that complained about 3rd edition and knew very little of the older editions.  In fact the very first person I know that was overjoyed with 4e when it came out, was only like 24, and he was the one always discussing hypothetical situations in order to demonstrate how "broken" D&D was.

Quote from: soviet;683165It's a 23 page thread. I've ctrl-F searched the word 'replicate' and I can't find any uses, and on a brief skim I can't find any similar discussions in there either. A more specific link maybe?

Sorry, the actual "replicate" argument was this thread. (http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/30047925/Original_Goals_of_5E)  But the original thread I linked has similar arguments

Quote from: Sacrosanct;683161Read this fucking thread (http://community.wizards.com/dndnext/go/thread/view/75882/30050581/Legends__Lore:_The_Final_Countdown_%28August_19%29) for some examples, you jackass.

Be specific.  WHERE in the TWENTY-FOUR PAGE THREAD do "a bunch" of people make the claim you say they make?

QuoteWhen you've got a bunch of 4e fans saying that they feel excluded in Next because Next's fighters don't replicate the spells of mages and clerics like they do in 4e, and explicitly tell you, "This is what 4e style is" when you ask them.

The only bias here is yours, in your steadfast refusal to admit that it possibly can't be the most likely reason, but that I'm somehow being disingenuous.  Christ you moron, it's not even me asking them these questions most of the time.  The 4e crowd is saying this, and I'm at fault for pointing it out?  I don't know if they are right and wrong, and the only solution you and soviet have come up with comes down to "always assume everyone is lying."

How fucking stupid.  I guess I should assume you're a liar when you said you're a lawyer, and that you're full of shit whenever you talk about aspects of the law.

After all, everyone is a liar....



Even though I might think they are crybabbies, when they say, "This is how X works in 4e", I have no reason to disbelieve them.  They are two completely different things.  I've never said I don't trust them when it comes down to what's included in 4e.  Once again, that's your bias making shit up.

I played 4e for many years.  So did both the groups I play with.  So did another person posting to this thread.  All of us are as much "experts" as any of those jackasses.  And I am telling you in 4e, fighters could not replicate spellcaster spells.  So, explain to me why you're trusting those jackasses, and not us?

Quote from: hamstertamer;683168That's weird because I don't know anyone real world that likes 4e that started playing D&D before 2000.  In my experience those that really wanted something like 4e were the younger 30 and under players that complained about 3rd edition and knew very little of the older editions.  In fact the very first person I know that was overjoyed with 4e when it came out, was only like 24, and he was the one always discussing hypothetical situations in order to demonstrate how "broken" D&D was.

Nonono, your experiance is not backed by a peer-reviewed publicly funded and replicated study so it's invalid and you need to shut up.

So saith lord mistwell, protector of the realm and anointed of god.

Quote from: Piestrio;683167Ah the old "I have to shut down this discussion" ploy.

After all none of us can 'prove' anything so nobodies opinion is any more or less valid than anyone else's!

Yay! 4e's virginity is intact for another day!

I didn't shut anything down, dumb dumb.  You said your experience was representative of a massive group of people, and that you had no actual objective date to back up your claim.  So, since that's obviously a spurious claim, I am asking you to back up your claim with something better than essentially, "this one time I heard".  I am not looking for some sort of absolute definitive proof, but I sure as hell am going to hold you to a higher standard than "your experience with the guys you happen to know" for a claim like that.

Quote from: hamstertamer;683168That's weird because I don't know anyone real world that likes 4e that started playing D&D before 2000.

I started playing D&D in the late 70s, first with the blue cover basic book, and then AD&D 1e, and then Basic and Expert.

And I like 4e.

It's no longer my preferred edition, but I played it for many years, and I liked it.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;683169Sorry, the actual "replicate" argument was this thread. (http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/30047925/Original_Goals_of_5E)  But the original thread I linked has similar arguments

And that's a 17 page thread to go with the 24 page thread and say "it's somewhere in there!".

WTF is wrong with your head that you can't link to the thing you're arguing from? Can you understand why we smell bullshit on your breath when you do shit like this now?

Quote from: Mistwell;683173I didn't shut anything down, dumb dumb.  You said your experience was representative of a massive group of people, and that you had no actual objective date to back up your claim.  So, since that's obviously a spurious claim, I am asking you to back up your claim with something better than essentially, "this one time I heard".  I am not looking for some sort of absolute definitive proof, but I sure as hell am going to hold you to a higher standard than "your experience with the guys you happen to know" for a claim like that.

Is there anything I could possibly say that you wouldn't shoot down?

We all know you're a disingenuous asshole, so I just want to know if there is any point in continuing.

I dunno.  I started with Moldvay around '81, and I don't mind 4e.  I don't know if it's my favoritest edition, and I actively despise both Encounters and LFR.  It's not a perfect system, but it works, and does most of the things that I want it to do.  I wish it was a bit faster to run combat, and I wish they had moved more in the direction of abilities being situational and getting more of a choice of them, rather than "dailies are just more awesome!" in all cases.  The nova emphasis in the game is something I don't care for, at all.

My favorite versions of D&D are probably AD&D1/Basic, and 4e.  I don't really care for 3e, mostly because the things it does well are things that I have other games that I feel do them *better*.  I went from GURPS *back* to D&D to simplify and get away from huge emphasize on build optimization, and was willing to accept lack of flexibility - D&D 3.x doesn't do those things.  

I can totally see people preferring D&D3, especially if they're looking for the flexibility/realism it offers over 4e.  It just happens that those aren't my criteria for D&D.

I'll also totally agree with everybody about the "isn't like D&D" thing - it's a lot of uncanny valley factor, made worse by the fact that they kept a lot of the older terminology, but made them mean *entirely different things*, and in a lot of things what something's used for in a game changes significantly (healing surges are really the thing that gets worn down over the day instead of hp, ferinstance, and the ritual/power split is certainly off-putting to many people).  I just have a high tolerance for "isn't the way I expect it to be" and willingness to relearn/rethink what things mean.  Some of that's probably also because a lot of stuff in 3.x isn't what I "think of" when I think of D&D - I mostly skipped 2e, and thought the kit/etc. stuff was a bunch of munchkin crap, and to me a "Fighter 3/Barbarian 2/Bladedancer 5/Cleric 2" doesn't sound much like D&D to me.

So, from my POV, it's "game that's kinda like D&D" or "game that's kinda like D&D".  I'd probably see 3.x as being "more D&D" if I had played a bunch of 2e.

I totally get why a lot of people *don't* like 4e, though, and wouldn't try to convince them otherwise.

5e has my attention at the moment.  Haven't played it, but the latest packet seems pretty reasonable.  My biggest concern is 3.x style multiclassing, and how that plays out.  Flexibility is good, and the ability to have the character you have in mind is good - but high amounts of charop leave me cold, and 3.x has the most extreme charop I've seen in a functional game (even discounting PunPun).

It seems to hit pretty nicely in what I would've really liked 4e to be - a lot of the tone of 1e or B/X, with additional flexibility for characters and less clunky rules.  That's pretty much my sweet spot for what I'd like to see in D&D.  

The one thing I'm disappointed about is that they seem to be going with a standard progression rate, which makes sense for typical games, but that's one thing I'd actually like to see.  I'm more interested in really old-school campaign types where it's presumed that characters really *are* subject to death, and that players will have multiple characters to choose from.  Variable advancement rates work great in that type of game.  But I get that's not how most people play today.

Quote from: soviet;683120In my experience a lot of the people who have a massive hate of 4e are those who started under 3e.

This is also my experience.  Not that there aren't people that don't fit that, but the vast majority that I've seen started with 3.x.  I've actually seen a *bunch* of people (again, not all) say that their favorite versions of D&D are 1e/B/X and 4e.

OTOH, I don't think I've ever seen anyone say that their favorite versions are 2e and 4e, so that's kind of odd.

Quote from: Piestrio;683171Nonono, your experiance is not backed by a peer-reviewed publicly funded and replicated study so it's invalid and you need to shut up.

So saith lord mistwell, protector of the realm and anointed of god.

His experience is his experience, just as yours is yours and mine is mine.  NONE of which is necessarily representative of anything at all, other than our experiences.  The difference is, only you tried to claim your personal experience revealed some universal truth.

Quote from: Rincewind1;683096I'm finding myself agreeing somewhat with Mistwell...He's correct on that point. 4e was successful by RPG standards, just not successful by Hasbro/WotC standards.

Yeah, I agree with him on this, too, so he's not completely out to lunch. This fact is actually a serious part of the problem, as many people who jumped on the D&D bandwagon during 4E only did so because it was not like what had come before. There's a bunch of other ridiculousness that I've only ever seen in online forums, but that last one? I've had several 4E fans tell me that in person; that 4E "fixed" D&D, finally. I can understand feeling that way about one's favored edition - nothing wrong with that - the problem is that that edition and many of its key design conceits are mutually incompatible with earlier editions. This is the reason that the loudest of those called 4vengers are so stridently opposed to Next, as there's just no way for Next to be a sop to 4E and pre-4E at the same time.

Quote from: Piestrio;683176Is there anything I could possibly say that you wouldn't shoot down?

We all know you're a disingenuous asshole, so I just want to know if there is any point in continuing.

Present something more objective than your own personal experience.  That's not the extreme standard you're mocking it to be.  In fact, it's the same standard you'd use in most arguments.  I've never seen you take someone else's personal experiences as representative of huge swaths of thousands of players before - wtf did you think it was OK to do so now?

Quote from: soviet;683005So you would say then that in 3e a lot of spells are mechanically indistinguishable from traps, yes?

Are you high? Do traps have Verbal, Somatic and Material components? Are they restricted to being used once per day per spell slot? Can they be understood through the use of the Spellcraft Skill? I mean, either you're catastrophically stupid, or so intellectually dishonest that you can't actually discuss the issue.

Quote from: soviet;683005And that skill use is mechanically indistinguishable from combat? You roll a d20 against a DC and some shit happens, what's the difference?

Aside from how the DC is determined, what the results of success or failure are, and all the other rules of combat surrounding the situation (which are completely different from those surrounding Skills), nothing. But then you knew that, didn't you? You realize that this kind of mental gymnastics you're doing are exactly what gets people labeled as 4vengers, right?

Quote from: soviet;683005Also the fighter's abilities are not impossible to explain. Even the more abstract ones like Come and Get It just require a bit of imagination. This is a hobby about imagination, after all.

Would you be so kind as to quote where I said they couldn't be explained? Oh, that's right! You can't, because I never said that. I said they couldn't be explained by mundane means.

Quote from: Mistwell;683174I started playing D&D in the late 70s, first with the blue cover basic book, and then AD&D 1e, and then Basic and Expert.

And I like 4e.

It's no longer my preferred edition, but I played it for many years, and I liked it.

Cool, I'm just basing my experience on what I see in the real world.  I'm sure there's a group of Chinese people playing 4e too, but I wouldn't consider them an honest representation of the 4e fan club.

Quote from: Monster Manuel;681878What I wonder is if the "positive feedback" takes into account the people, who like me, stopped keeping up with the downloads out of disinterest in the direction it was taking.

I'd say it almost certainly doesn't. I filled out the first few surveys and then even gave up on that because the questions weren't even addressing issues that I found relevant or interesting.

The belief WotC's designers apparently have in their ability to "tidy things up and finish fixing the math" without further playtesting is also not a good sign. The last time they did this we ended up with the skill challenge system that was so broken that they had to rip it out and completely replace it just a few weeks after 4E launched.

Ultimately, though, the playtest has been a success for WotC in the only way that I think it actually mattered to them: Winning back some portion of public goodwill. While some people have been turned off by the playtest packets, I think it's a virtual certainty that the vast, vast majority of them were not going to be won over by the game D&D Next is going to be no matter what WotC did. (And I'm quite consciously counting myself in those ranks.)

But what is (hopefully) a significant number of people, the playtest has made them much more likely to give the final game a fair shake.

Quote from: Mistwell;683174I started playing D&D in the late 70s, first with the blue cover basic book, and then AD&D 1e, and then Basic and Expert.

And I like 4e.

It's no longer my preferred edition, but I played it for many years, and I liked it.

Yeah. I find the efforts to turn a preference for 4E into a generational conflict to be wearying.

I don't like it. I don't like the way it does things. I don't like the things it fails to do. And I really don't like that it has the name "Dungeons & Dragons" on the cover while failing to replicate the core game play that defined D&D from 1974 to 2008.

But that's not because I'm 33 and started playing BECMI and 2nd Edition in 1989. It's because 4E and I want very different things out of a roleplaying game.

Quote from: Mistwell;683155That dude is wrong. Fighters couldn't replicate spells.  I strongly suspect you're talking about a specific mechanics argument someone was having, rather than the actual in-game function of some powers.  For example, I suspect it was a specific discussion of mechanics comparisons such as "wizard can cast a melee-ranged attack that does 3d6+[mainstat] damage, vs Fighter who can use a melee-ranged power that makes his attack with his sword do 3d6+[mainstat] damage".  Now, just because the range and number of dice you toss to determine damage are the same DOES NOT MAKE THE FIGHTERS ATTACK THE SAME AS A SPELL.  The resolution mechanics might be similar, but in-game there is a huge role playing difference between casting a spell, and hitting something with your sword.  The mechanics might be the same in any version of D&D, but that never made the sword-hitting actually a spell because the mechanics were the same, before.

Ah, so as long as the roleplay is different, the two are totally not the same! That's why we had all the cool fluff descriptions of abilities in 4E - so we could tell them apart.

Quote from: Mistwell;683174And I like 4e.

It's no longer my preferred edition, but I played it for many years, and I liked it.

I liked 4E, until we reached paragon tier.

Even slightly before level 10, combat was slowing to a grind and keeping track of so many things.  (Throwing in minions to reduce some of the bookkeeping didn't really improve things much).

If I ever do play 4E again, I'll only do low level stuff.  (At this point, I don't think I'll be playing 4E in the foreseeable future).

Quote from: Mistwell;683174I started playing D&D in the late 70s, first with the blue cover basic book, and then AD&D 1e, and then Basic and Expert.

And I like 4e.

It's no longer my preferred edition, but I played it for many years, and I liked it.

You're lying.  Someone told me that we should never believe what some jackass says on the internet.  So you're lying.  You haven't played D&D that long.  I have no reason to believe you.

Quote from: Mistwell;683175And that's a 17 page thread to go with the 24 page thread and say "it's somewhere in there!".

WTF is wrong with your head that you can't link to the thing you're arguing from? Can you understand why we smell bullshit on your breath when you do shit like this now?

WTF is wrong with you?  Both of those threads are filled with the sort of quotes I was talking about.  Just read them.  It's not like it was just a post here and there buried under everything else.

The entire posts are your evidence, Mr. pretend lawyer dude.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;683161When you've got a bunch of 4e fans saying that they feel excluded in Next because Next's fighters don't replicate the spells of mages and clerics like they do in 4e, and explicitly tell you, "This is what 4e style is" when you ask them.

I've read the thread linked to. Is this the bit you were talking about? (page 11)

Quote from: thecasualoblivionHaving 10976 options becomes less interesting when they all look the same, and none of them do a whole lot. None of those 10976 matches what a Mage or Cleric can do with a spell, compared to 4E Fighter powers which were on par with magic. There is also no customization beyond choosing the Gladiator path, compared to 4E where I can build four(at least 4) Fighters that bear almost no resemblance to each other without breaking a sweat.

Quote from: rajwaibelI bolded the part as to why you'll never agree.  Certain fans want mundane classes to have powers that replicate spells, both in effect and in style.  It doesn't matter if Next includes a lot of abilities, skills, and maneuvers into a mundane class.  Unless those abilities are just as "OMG Wow!" as a spell, they won't be happy.  Maybe it's PTSD from CODzilla, I don't know.  But I think I'm pretty safe in the assumption that most D&D players are perfectly fine with mundane classes being really good at mundane things and having spell casters good at fantastical spell casting things.  

I know I don't play a fighter because I want to replicate a spell caster's abilities in flash and in power.  I play a fighter because I want to be in the thick of battle knocking some heads together better than any other class.   And if the fighter can do that with his or her core abilities, then I don't need skills that replicte a teleport spell, or a polymorf spell, or a fireball spell, or whatever.

Because if so I think you misread these 'experts' quite a bit. One says he wants fighter stuff to be on par with (ie of equal power level to) wizards and clerics. The other then does a strawman thing where he says that 'other people' must therefore want their fighters to replicate spells like teleport and polymorph (sic). No-one AFAICS says that they want this, or that 4e already does this.

Quote from: Bobloblah;683187Ah, so as long as the roleplay is different, the two are totally not the same! That's why we had all the cool fluff descriptions of abilities in 4E - so we could tell them apart.

Obviously there are mechanical differences as well, such as the use of the spellcraft ability for spells that are cast, the use of orbs/wands/staves for changing spells, that sort of thing.  What I am saying is that, just because the range and number of dice involved are the same, that doesn't make the sword and the spell actually the same any more than it made it actually the same in ANY edition of D&D.

For example, there were plenty of times where a spell cast in 3e had the same exact range, attack, and damage mechanics as a mundane weapon attack.  That never made it the same in 3e either, however.

Quote from: ggroy;683189I liked 4E, until we reached paragon tier.

Even slightly before level 10, combat was slowing to a grind and keeping track of so many things.  (Throwing in minions to reduce some of the bookkeeping didn't really improve things much).

If I ever do play 4E again, I'll only do low level stuff.  (At this point, I don't think I'll be playing 4E in the foreseeable future).

Agreed.  Though I admit this is my bias for all versions of D&D.  I just don't like the complexities that come with high level play.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;683190You're lying.  Someone told me that we should never believe what some jackass says on the internet.  So you're lying.  You haven't played D&D that long.  I have no reason to believe you.

OK, cool.

QuoteWTF is wrong with you?  Both of those threads are filled with the sort of quotes I was talking about.  Just read them.  It's not like it was just a post here and there buried under everything else.

The entire posts are your evidence, Mr. pretend lawyer dude.

I read the front page of both, and your argument is not mentioned even vaguely on either.  Please link to one single post that says this.  If the threads are so rife with it, like you say, this should not take you so long.  Indeed, it should take you less time than it took for you to type than two paragraph "it's there somewhere no really!" response.

My sense is there were two broad groups opposed to 4E:

1) Long-time players who saw the grid and metagame mechanics and thought really? Fuck, whatever. Not interested. There wasn't anger, so much as resignation that WotC was continuing on an unappealing trajectory. Note this wasn't all long-time players. Some seemed to really like it. Especially if they already liked tactical grid play.

2) Players who first played 3.x and had never witnessed WotC abandon an edition. This was the largest and fiercest contingent of the edition wars. They were mad. And they were largely ignorant of the history that WotC had pulled this shit before by scrapping AD&D. Which I find quite funny. You can still see all sorts of forum comments claiming there had been no edition wars before 4E. Dragonsfoot and TETSNBN say hi.

So 4E was a step too far for a lot of old-school gamers, but they were largely disengaged from WotC anyway. The real vitriol came from the 3.x generation, who had never considered that they too could be fired as fans.

Quote from: Bobloblah;683180Yeah, I agree with him on this, too, so he's not completely out to lunch. This fact is actually a serious part of the problem, as many people who jumped on the D&D bandwagon during 4E only did so because it was not like what had come before. There's a bunch of other ridiculousness that I've only ever seen in online forums, but that last one? I've had several 4E fans tell me that in person; that 4E "fixed" D&D, finally. I can understand feeling that way about one's favored edition - nothing wrong with that - the problem is that that edition and many of its key design conceits are mutually incompatible with earlier editions. This is the reason that the loudest of those called 4vengers are so stridently opposed to Next, as there's just no way for Next to be a sop to 4E and pre-4E at the same time.

The TSR editions are different iterations of the same basic game.

3e is an attempt to copy paste the 'feel' of the TSR editions over a different, more complex and less balanced mechanical framework and add in a hefty dollop of 'play is about using the mechanics to overcome challenges tactically'. So you can kind of squint at 3e and think it's the same as TSR editions, but unless you drift (or simply ignore) the rules a lot, play will not bear this similarity out.

4e is an attempt to fix the maths and structure of 3e to achieve the 'play is about using the mechanics to overcome challenges tactically' goal. It succeeds at this, albeit by turning the dial on some of the gamey parts of the system all the way to 11. It is impossible to squint at 4e and think it is the same as TSR D&D.

I can respect people coming from the TSR edition perspective saying that 3e and 4e are 'not D&D'. But anyone coming from the 3e perspective who says that 4e (only) is 'not D&D' is wrong. 4e is just 3e done right, and almost all of the criticisms applied to 4e are equally as valid against 3e.

Quote from: soviet;683197I've read the thread linked to. Is this the bit you were talking about? (page 11)





Because if so I think you misread these 'experts' quite a bit. One says he wants fighter stuff to be on par with (ie of equal power level to) wizards and clerics. The other then does a strawman thing where he says that 'other people' must therefore want their fighters to replicate spells like teleport and polymorph (sic). No-one AFAICS says that they want this, or that 4e already does this.

Keep reading.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;683215Keep reading.

Fuck that mate, I've done enough legwork trying to find the evidence for your argument. Direct quotes or it didn't happen!

Quote from: Haffrung;683209My sense is there were two broad groups opposed to 4E:

1) Long-time players who saw the grid and metagame mechanics and thought really? Fuck, whatever. Not interested. There wasn't anger, so much as resignation that WotC was continuing on an unappealing trajectory. Note this wasn't all long-time players. Some seemed to really like it. Especially if they already liked tactical grid play.

2) Players who first played 3.x and had never witnessed WotC abandon an edition. This was the largest and fiercest contingent of the edition wars. They were mad. And they were largely ignorant of the history that WotC had pulled this shit before by scrapping AD&D. Which I find quite funny. You can still see all sorts of forum comments claiming there had been no edition wars before 4E. Dragonsfoot and TETSNBN say hi.

So 4E was a step too far for a lot of old-school gamers, but they were largely disengaged from WotC anyway. The real vitriol came from the 3.x generation, who had never considered that they too could be fired as fans.

I fit into category 1. Had already given up on 3e.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;683215Keep reading.

Powers, not spells. In 4E, everyone gets powers.

Quote from: soviet;683220Fuck that mate, I've done enough legwork trying to find the evidence for your argument. Direct quotes or it didn't happen!

I provided the links to where they could be found.  I sure as hell ain't gonna hold your and reread all that crap again.  And certainly not for a guy who's position comes down to the assumption that everyone must be lying all the time.

Yeah, I know it's hard for you and Mistwell to admit that a group of the most vocal 4e fans say something you don't agree with re: 4e.  Cry me a river.

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;683229Powers, not spells. In 4E, everyone gets powers.

Potato, potato.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;683230I provided the links to where they could be found.  I sure as hell ain't gonna hold your and reread all that crap again.  And certainly not for a guy who's position comes down to the assumption that everyone must be lying all the time.

Yeah, I know it's hard for you and Mistwell to admit that a group of the most vocal 4e fans say something you don't agree with re: 4e.  Cry me a river.

I assume you're talking about me, and I assure you I never said Fighters used spells. I probably said powers a few times, and as Soviet posted above I had said I wanted Fighters to have powers that were on-par with spells in terms of power or concept.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;683230I provided the links to where they could be found.  I sure as hell ain't gonna hold your and reread all that crap again.  And certainly not for a guy who's position comes down to the assumption that everyone must be lying all the time.

Yeah, I know it's hard for you and Mistwell to admit that a group of the most vocal 4e fans say something you don't agree with re: 4e.  Cry me a river.

So, to be clear:
You state a daft position about a game you haven't read
When challenged for an explanation you say 'the 4e experts said it, nothing to do with me'
When asked for a direct link or a quote you say no
When the person you say you were paraphrasing turns up in the thread, he denies saying what you claimed he said
And the moral of the story is that 4e fans suck?

Come on dude

Jesus, who fucking cares?

It is an ex-edition. 'E's dead. He's off the twig.
HELLO FOURTH! TESTING! TESTING! TESTING! This is your nine o'clock wake up call!

Quote from: JonWake;683243Jesus, who fucking cares?

It is an ex-edition. 'E's dead. He's off the twig.
HELLO FOURTH! TESTING! TESTING! TESTING! This is your nine o'clock wake up call!

I've played it three times this week with three different groups. Seems alive enough to me.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;683230I provided the links to where they could be found.

No, you didn't.  We're still waiting for that.  You said it was FULL of that shit, and multiple people have taken a stab at this and failed to find what you claim is ALL OVER that thread.  Fuck, you won't even vaguely hint at a section of pages where it can be found...you won't even hint that this supposed information is in the second half of the thread or something like that.

So yeah, we called bullshit, and you blinked.  That's where things stand right now.  Ball is in your court.  YOU made the claim, and you're the one punting now.  Sure looks like you were lying, and hoped nobody would call you one it, and now that multiple people have called you on it you're just scurrying away from it and trying to find a way to plausibly punt out of your claims.

And by the way, I never said anyone was a liar - I said if they made that claim, they're wrong.  As in, I disagree with their opinion.  But, it looks right now like nobody made that claim.

Quote from: soviet;683238So, to be clear:
You state a daft position about a game you haven't read

I'm going to stop you right there because that wasn't my position, and I've said this already several times.  The rest isn't even worth reading if you can't even get the first part right.

QuoteCome on dude

Indeed.

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;683245I've played it three times this week with three different groups. Seems alive enough to me.

La dee fucking da.

When are they coming out with a new book?

Quote from: Mistwell;683246No, you didn't.  We're still waiting for that.  You said it was FULL of that shit, and multiple people have taken a stab at this and failed to find what you claim is ALL OVER that thread.

So yeah, we called bullshit, and you blinked.  That's where things stand right now.  Ball is in your court.  YOU made the claim, and you're the one punting now.

man what?

"multiple people"?  Only you and soviet, and you guys haven't even read the threads.  In fact, you've said you refuse to unless I reread them all and hand pick out the quotes for you.

Sorry dude.  You need to seriously get over yourself.  Hell, you even have TCO in this thread implying it.

You're reaching pretty far dude.  Good luck with that.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;683249man what?

"multiple people"?  Only you and soviet, and you guys haven't even read the threads.  In fact, you've said you refuse to unless I reread them all and hand pick out the quotes for you.

Sorry dude.  You need to seriously get over yourself.  Hell, you even have TCO in this thread implying it.

You're reaching pretty far dude.  Good luck with that.

Implied how? I think your own prejudices are at play here.

Quote from: JonWake;683248La dee fucking da.

When are they coming out with a new book?

Probably when 5E flops with the 4E community followed by 4E fans clamoring 3rd party companies to "Pathfinder"-ize 4E.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;683249man what?

"multiple people"?  Only you and soviet, and you guys haven't even read the threads. In fact, you've said you refuse to unless I reread them all and hand pick out the quotes for you.

So, now we can all see you lying.  No way to wiggle out of it.  I said I read the first page of both threads you posted, and Soviet actually quoted you back stuff from the thread, and now you're just completely fabricating a lie about how we won't read it.

That', or you're a fucking idiot.  Yeah, lets go with that.  So, I will walk you through this: You made a claim about a 23 page thread.  Someone called you on it after they did a search on it and you said whoops, your bad, you meant a different 17 page thread.  So then searches were done on that thread and it didn't turn up so we called you on that, and you said you're not going to read through and find the thing YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT, and we have to dig through it to find it.  So then I read some, and Soviet read more, and you were quoted back some from it, and you said "no, keep reading", and again said you would not read it yourself to find THE THING YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THAT NOBODY HAS FOUND YET BUT THAT IS SUPPOSEDLY ALL OVER THAT THREAD...EXCEPT APPARENTLY ISN'T.

So I will ask again, can you at least limit it down to a section of that big long thread? Is it in the last quarter of the thread? One of the middle quarters? The first quarter? You said it was all over...what did you mean by that, three messages, or literally pick a page and it will be right there?  Or maybe some wording we can search for? At least give us some hint on this grand easter egg game you're playing.

Quote from: Mistwell;683254So, now we can all see you lying.  No way to wiggle out of it.  I said I read the first page of both threads you posted, and Soviet actually quoted you back stuff from the thread, and now you're just completely fabricating a lie about how we won't read it.

That', or you're a fucking idiot.  Yeah, lets go with that.  So, I will walk you through this: You made a claim about a 23 page thread.  Someone called you on it and you said whoops, your bad, you meant a different 17 page thread.  So then we called you on that, and you said you're not going to read through and find the thing YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT, and we have to dig through it to find it.  So then I read some, and Soviet read more, and you were quoted back some from it, and you said "no, keep reading", and again said you would not read it yourself to find THE THING YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THAT NOBODY HAS FOUND YET BUT THAT IS SUPPOSEDLY ALL OVER THAT THREAD...EXCEPT APPARENTLY ISN'T.

So I will ask again, can you at least limit it down to a section of that big long thread? Is it in the last quarter of the thread? One of the middle quarters? The first quarter? You said it was all over...what did you mean by that, three messages, or literally pick a page and it will be right there?  At least give us some hint on this grand easter egg game you're playing.

I have been all over the edition war threads in that forum, following them in real-time, and I have no idea what he's talking about.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;683169Sorry, the actual "replicate" argument was this thread. (http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/30047925/Original_Goals_of_5E)  But the original thread I linked has similar arguments

OK I went back and did a complete page-by-page search.  The guy making the replicate argument IS CasualOblivion in that thread, AND HE DOESN'T SAY WHAT YOU CLAIM HE SAID.  So, you're either mistaken, or lying.  And, I think it's funny you're claiming Casual Oblivion is your "self-proclaimed expert", which is a claim NOBODY in that thread makes by the way.

So then I went PAGE BY PAGE through the whole fucking thread (damn, it was dumb).  And yup, it was CO, and he doesn't say what you claim was said.  In fact, he's mostly saying the opposite - he says certain fans want that, and they don't get it, and he wouldn't want that either.  Nobody - not one single person in that entire thread - says 4e fighters can replicate spells or anything even vaguely close to that kind of argument.

So which is it, lying, or mistaken?

Quote from: Sacrosanct;683247I'm going to stop you right there because that wasn't my position, and I've said this already several times.  The rest isn't even worth reading if you can't even get the first part right.

So for future reference, none of the things you say are your opinions, they are just the things that the internet experts have said and that you are blindly repeating,  but sorry you're not able to provide links or explanations and it's not your fault if the experts when they are identified say something different from claimed. Really?

I've seen you post sense before, maybe you need to rethink this approach you're taking

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;683255I have been all over the edition war threads in that forum, following them in real-time, and I have no idea what he's talking about.

I'll bet you have.  How is it that you always seem to turn up in a forum when there's an edition war?

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;683250Implied how? I think your own prejudices are at play here.

That's pretty funny.  I suppose that's why when you said that you liked how 4e had fighters who could replicate mage and cleric spells with their own powers, that's why you later had to explain it using your "it's because... imitate things like Vampire Hunter D, Ninja Scroll, and our favorite characters from Final Fantasy 6/7, Chrono Trigger, and StarOcean.."

Quote from: Mistwell;683254So, now we can all see you lying.  No way to wiggle out of it.  I said I read the first page of both threads you posted, and Soviet actually quoted you back stuff from the thread, and now you're just completely fabricating a lie about how we won't read it.

That', or you're a fucking idiot.  Yeah, lets go with that.  So, I will walk you through this: You made a claim about a 23 page thread.  Someone called you on it after they did a search on it and you said whoops, your bad, you meant a different 17 page thread.  So then searches were done on that thread and it didn't turn up so we called you on that, and you said you're not going to read through and find the thing YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT, and we have to dig through it to find it.  So then I read some, and Soviet read more, and you were quoted back some from it, and you said "no, keep reading", and again said you would not read it yourself to find THE THING YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THAT NOBODY HAS FOUND YET BUT THAT IS SUPPOSEDLY ALL OVER THAT THREAD...EXCEPT APPARENTLY ISN'T.

So I will ask again, can you at least limit it down to a section of that big long thread? Is it in the last quarter of the thread? One of the middle quarters? The first quarter? You said it was all over...what did you mean by that, three messages, or literally pick a page and it will be right there?  Or maybe some wording we can search for? At least give us some hint on this grand easter egg game you're playing.

No wonder lawyers have the rep they do.  You have to be one of the most disingenuous dirtbags I've ever seen.  Real testament to your profession.  Hell, real testament to your species.

This is what I said on page 6:

" 3e still had mundane classes doing relatively mundane abilities not having fighters being able to replicate spells (a common point that 4e fans like to bring up when talking about how Next sucks because it doesn't allow fighters to replicate spells.)"

Which means the same thing as TCO said, and Lokaire, and Blacksheepcannibel, and a few others all reaffirmed in both of those threads I linked.  Lokaire was directly asked what 4e style means, and he gave an explanation.  An explanation where the mundane classes were able to replicate the spells and/or powers of caster classes.

Quote

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;683255I have been all over the edition war threads in that forum, following them in real-time, and I have no idea what he's talking about.

Probably because you're one of the worst representations of a 4e fan, and constantly either change your story or lie about it.  Christ dude, you had a lengthy conversation trying to justify your position that fighters need powers to replicate spells by your repeated references to Vampire Hunter D.


Yeah, you two certainly are a piece of work.

Quote from: soviet;683259So for future reference, none of the things you say are your opinions, they are just the things that the internet experts have said and that you are blindly repeating,  but sorry you're not able to provide links or explanations and it's not your fault if the experts when they are identified say something different from claimed. Really?

I've seen you post sense before, maybe you need to rethink this approach you're taking

My very first post was, " 3e still had mundane classes doing relatively mundane abilities not having fighters being able to replicate spells (a common point that 4e fans like to bring up when talking about how Next sucks because it doesn't allow fighters to replicate spells.)"

What part don't you get?  What part of that makes you think that it's my position?  The very first post I say it's a claim made by some 4e fans.   I'm starting to agree with Black Veluma.  You are doing nothing but trying to troll the forums.  Because no one can be this stupid.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;683263My very first post was, " 3e still had mundane classes doing relatively mundane abilities not having fighters being able to replicate spells (a common point that 4e fans like to bring up when talking about how Next sucks because it doesn't allow fighters to replicate spells.)"

What part don't you get?  What part of that makes you think that it's my position?  The very first post I say it's a claim made by some 4e fans.   I'm starting to agree with Black Veluma.  You are doing nothing but trying to troll the forums.  Because no one can be this stupid.

Apparently you can.

But anyway, OK, so your position is simply that 'a common point that 4e fans like to bring up[/B] when talking about how Next sucks because it doesn't allow fighters to replicate spells'. Well, I didn't see a single example of that in either of the threads you linked to. But if it's so common, I should be seeing it all the time, right? So please show me some examples of 4e fans saying this. Because the only name we've been given so far has now turned up in the thread again and flatly denied your claims.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;683262That's pretty funny.  I suppose that's why when you said that you liked how 4e had fighters who could replicate mage and cleric spells with their own powers, that's why you later had to explain it using your "it's because... imitate things like Vampire Hunter D, Ninja Scroll, and our favorite characters from Final Fantasy 6/7, Chrono Trigger, and StarOcean.."

I was talking about powers, things beyond spamming swinging a sword over and over again, not spells. Powers are not necessarily spells. Come and get It isn't a spell.

QuoteNo wonder lawyers have the rep they do.  You have to be one of the most disingenuous dirtbags I've ever seen.  Real testament to your profession.  Hell, real testament to your species.

This is what I said on page 6:

" 3e still had mundane classes doing relatively mundane abilities not having fighters being able to replicate spells (a common point that 4e fans like to bring up when talking about how Next sucks because it doesn't allow fighters to replicate spells.)"

Which means the same thing as TCO said, and Lokaire, and Blacksheepcannibel, and a few others all reaffirmed in both of those threads I linked.  Lokaire was directly asked what 4e style means, and he gave an explanation.  An explanation where the mundane classes were able to replicate the spells and/or powers of caster classes.

You are equating powers with spells, not us.

QuoteProbably because you're one of the worst representations of a 4e fan, and constantly either change your story or lie about it.  Christ dude, you had a lengthy conversation trying to justify your position that fighters need powers to replicate spells by your repeated references to Vampire Hunter D.


Yeah, you two certainly are a piece of work.

Replicating spells is your words. My words are do the cool stuff we saw on TV/videogames, and to have powers that match spells in potency and concept(which doesn't make those powers spells).

--clarification, by concept I mean be as dramatic and interesting as a spell.

You're projecting your own prejudices onto what other people say.

Quote from: soviet;683264So please show me some examples of 4e fans saying this. Because the only name we've been given so far has now turned up in the thread again and flatly denied your claims.

I already gave you the links.  I gave you no less than 3 names as well.


You know what?  Obviously you are just trolling.  You have to be.

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;683265I was talking about powers, things beyond spamming swinging a sword over and over again, not spells. Powers are not necessarily spells. Come and get It isn't a spell.

.

But it replicates the power of a spell.  That's the whole point.  That's why other people told you that if you can't explain it via mundane means, then effectively it's no different than a spell.  That's why rather than explain it in mundane terms, you kept going back to "It works because Vampire Hunter!"

Holy fuck, you are just like Blacksheep in that thread.  When pointed out how you are wrong, you can't actually back up your point but quite literally do the internet equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears and saying, "No, you!"

This isn't a bias of mine.  You're statements are there.  I didn't hijack your account and type them for you.  Several people called you out on it, so it's not just my personal biases.

Or let me guess.  You're right, and the rest of the world is what has a problem.  Is that it?

Quote from: Sacrosanct;683267I already gave you the links.  I gave you no less than 3 names as well.


You know what?  Obviously you are just trolling.  You have to be.



But it replicates the power of a spell.  That's the whole point.  That's why other people told you that if you can't explain it via mundane means, then effectively it's no different than a spell.  That's why rather than explain it in mundane terms, you kept going back to "It works because Vampire Hunter!"

This is a fantasy game and a fantasy world. A heroic Fighter PC is not mundane as far as I'm concerned, especially not a high levels. He's more like Jubei from Ninja Scroll than joe blow #6 with a sword. There is no such thing as mundane terms, the point is to not be mundane. My fantasy isn't so narrow that magic is the only not-mundane.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;683267Holy fuck, you are just like Blacksheep in that thread.  When pointed out how you are wrong, you can't actually back up your point but quite literally do the internet equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears and saying, "No, you!"

Wait, I thought he was an infallible expert who always tells the truth?

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;683252Probably when 5E flops with the 4E community followed by 4E fans clamoring 3rd party companies to "Pathfinder"-ize 4E.

Keep holding your fuckin' breath for that.

We'll wait.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;683263I'm starting to agree with Black Veluma.  You are doing nothing but trying to troll the forums.

Also, what? Are you confusing me with another poster?

Quote from: soviet;683272Also, what? Are you confusing me with another poster?

Probably.  But I don't care.  You have to be trolling me at this point.

Funny story about 4e.  So last night I meet up with a musician friend of mine whose been living here in Seattle forever. I mentioned that I was playing 5e, and he divulges that a friend a few years back was one of the art directors at WoTC, circa 2007-2008.  Appropro nothing, this is how the conversation goes:

"I hope they're doing a better job of playtesting than they did last time."
"Oh? I didn't think they did a public playtest."
"According to Whatserface, they did an internal playtest. Nobody liked it, and they kept suggesting changes to the developers. The developers just ignored them and ended up cutting the playtest short."

Then, six months after launch, people start losing their jobs.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;683263My very first post was, " 3e still had mundane classes doing relatively mundane abilities not having fighters being able to replicate spells (a common point that 4e fans like to bring up when talking about how Next sucks because it doesn't allow fighters to replicate spells.)"

What part don't you get?  What part of that makes you think that it's my position?  The very first post I say it's a claim made by some 4e fans.   I'm starting to agree with Black Veluma.  You are doing nothing but trying to troll the forums.  Because no one can be this stupid.

...godfuckingdammit I promised myself I was out of this fight...

Show us someone actually making that claim, goddammit. You have not done that. The best you could dredge up was TCO saying something else entirely.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;683274Probably.  But I don't care.  You have to be trolling me at this point.

It sort of weakens your position though doesn't it? You can't keep me and silva distinct and yet you expect us to trust you when you say specific posters made specific points in other threads that you can't be bothered to link to.

Also, asking you to backup your wild assertions isn't trolling. Especially when the quotes and links provided so far actively undermine your claims.

Quote from: LibraryLass;683277...godfuckingdammit I promised myself I was out of this fight...

Show us someone actually making that claim, goddammit. You have not done that. The best you could dredge up was TCO saying something else entirely.

I just did.  When you give fighters abili....er...powers that replicate the effects of a spell, that's exactly the same thing as saying "fighters being able to replicate spells."

Because that's what replicate means.  You're replicating the effect.  Spell, power, whatever term doesn't matter.  The point is that you're giving the fighter a way to replicate the effect of a spell.

Quote from: soviet;683278It sort of weakens your position though doesn't it? You can't keep me and silva distinct and yet you expect us to trust you when you say specific posters made specific points in other threads that you can't be bothered to link to.

Also, asking you to backup your wild assertions isn't trolling. Especially when the quotes and links provided so far actively undermine your claims.

I gave you the links.  I gave you the names.  I even gave you quotes for Christ's sake.  So you're lying.  Those were given to you.

What you did was say that I made a "daft" claim when in fact I was very clear from the beginning that it was not my claim.  You've also said that a group of people widely known to be the biggest fans and experts of a system should automatically be assumed to be lying.

So don't for a second think you can toss stones in your glass house about not keeping things straight.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;683263I'm starting to agree with Black Veluma.  You are doing nothing but trying to troll the forums.

You really don't need to troll these forums. You guys troll yourselves, all I have to do is say 'hello'.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;683262TCO said, and Lokaire, and Blacksheepcannibel, and a few others all reaffirmed in both of those threads I linked.  Lokaire was directly asked what 4e style means, and he gave an explanation.  An explanation where the mundane classes were able to replicate the spells and/or powers of caster classes.

QuoteNone of TCO, lokiare, or blacksheepcannibal claim to be 4e experts in that thread.

None of TCO, lokiare, or blacksheepcannibal claim mundane classes were able to replicate the spells and/or powers of caster classes in 4e in that thread.  TCO says some mundane powers are ON PAR WITH spells, but neither him nor either of the others say what you claim they said, or anything close to it.

I'm not trolling you.  I read the thread.  I think you just misremembered, or didn't understand what they were saying because you're not really familiar with the rules they're talking about.

Quote from: Mistwell;683283None of TCO, lokiare, or blacksheepcannibal claim to be 4e experts in that thread.

My friend has never claimed to be an expert at motorcycle repair.  However, his actions and conversations over the years clearly have illustrated that he is.

Can't lawyer-speak your way out this one.

QuoteNone of TCO, lokiare, or blacksheepcannibal claim mundane classes were able to replicate the spells and/or powers of caster classes in 4e in that thread.

So, are you mis-remembering, or simply lying?

Read them again.  I know you said you did, but clearly you didn't.  Because both TCO and lokaire have described at least once that their idea of 4e style of play includes fighters (or other mundane classes) having powers that replicate spell effects.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;683281I gave you the links.  I gave you the names.  I even gave you quotes for Christ's sake.  So you're lying.  Those were given to you.

A link to the start of a 24 page thread, that upon investigation did not support your claim. Then a link to the start of a 17 page thread that also did not support your claim. No precise link to a post, no quote that supports your position. Then the poster you claimed to be quoting turns up and also does not support your claim.

Anyone reading this thread can see you are wrong. But the more you thrash around the more it looks like you have been caught in a lie rather than you just made a mistake.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;683281What you did was say that I made a "daft" claim when in fact I was very clear from the beginning that it was not my claim.  You've also said that a group of people widely known to be the biggest fans and experts of a system should automatically be assumed to be lying.

You claimed that this was a common thing for 4e fans to say and yet you cannot provide one example of a 4e fan saying it.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;683280I just did.  When you give fighters abili....er...powers that replicate the effects of a spell, that's exactly the same thing as saying "fighters being able to replicate spells."

Because that's what replicate means.  You're replicating the effect.  Spell, power, whatever term doesn't matter.  The point is that you're giving the fighter a way to replicate the effect of a spell.

Nobody is talking about replicating the effects of spells except you. All I was saying is that I'd like to be able to use powers that are as potent and awesome as what a caster can do at that level. Not by replicating magic, but by having purely physical skills that are just that damn good.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;683280I just did.  When you give fighters abili....er...powers that replicate the effects of a spell, that's exactly the same thing as saying "fighters being able to replicate spells."

Because that's what replicate means.  You're replicating the effect.  Spell, power, whatever term doesn't matter.  The point is that you're giving the fighter a way to replicate the effect of a spell.

Show me a spell that does what Come and Get it does. Show me even one.

Quote from: soviet;683287A link to the start of a 24 page thread, that upon investigation did not support your claim. Then a link to the start of a 17 page thread that also did not support your claim. No precise link to a post, no quote that supports your position.

Anyone reading this thread can see you are wrong. But the more you thrash around the more it looks like you have been caught in a lie rather than you just made a mistake.



You claimed that this was a common thing for 4e fans to say and yet you cannot provide one example of a 4e fan saying it.

Firstly, the first link did also have the conversation about this topic.  Clearly you never did read it.

Secondly, I even pasted quotes from there into this thread.  You seem to be ignoring all of the objective data that is proving you wrong.

Shine on, crazy diamond.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;683290You seem to be ignoring all of the objective data that is proving you wrong.

Shine on, crazy diamond.

OMFG he's talking to himself now, the breakdown is complete.

This is just sad.

Quote from: LibraryLass;683289Show me a spell that does what Come and Get it does. Show me even one.

First, that's not the only power a fighter has.  Lokaire also mentioned effectively teleporting out of the grasp of whatever.

Secondly, even if that was the only power, I need to find just one spell that forces a target(s) to come to you?  There are several that can do that.  Suggestion?  Charm person?  Teleport other?  Trobriand's Baleful Teleport? Command?

Quote from: Sacrosanct;683286My friend has never claimed to be an expert at motorcycle repair.  However, his actions and conversations over the years clearly have illustrated that he is.

Caught lying again.  Here is what you said:

Quote from: Sacrosanct;683115The group that defines themselves as 4e experts...Running counter to my bias?  Dude, I already told you I don't pay 4e.  I don't know what powers do what.  So when a group of self professed 4e experts and defenders say that this is how it works in 4e and this is what they want in 5e in order for them to get the 4e playstyle, I have no reason to automatically assume they are lying.

You know what "defines themselves" means, right? You know what "self-professed" means, right? Neither means "implied by actions and conversations over years".  In fact, those phrases are the phrases you use to demonstrate it's not implied, but EXPLICIT.

QuoteRead them again.  I know you said you did, but clearly you didn't.  Because both TCO and lokaire have described at least once that their idea of 4e style of play includes fighters (or other mundane classes) having powers that replicate spell effects.

No, they do not.  I read it.  Carefully.  Looking specifically for your claim.  They don't make that claim.  None of them do.  They're talking about mundane powers on par with spell powers, as in potency, not replicating spells.  Those are the very words used, "on par with".  Nobody makes the claim you're talking about.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;683292First, that's not the only power a fighter has.  Lokaire also mentioned effectively teleporting out of the grasp of whatever.

Secondly, even if that was the only power, I need to find just one spell that forces a target(s) to come to you?  There are several that can do that.  Suggestion?  Charm person?  Teleport other?  Trobriand's Baleful Teleport? Command?

So wait now it is your claim that fighters can replicate spells? You were pretty insistent earlier that you never said this, it was the ghostly internet experts.

Quote from: soviet;683294So wait now it is your claim that fighters can replicate spells? You were pretty insistent earlier that you never said this, it was the ghostly internet experts.

Pretty much.

Quote from: Mistwell;683293Caught lying again.  Here is what you said:



You know what "defines themselves" means, right? You know what "self-professed" means, right? Neither means "implied by actions and conversations over years".  In fact, those phrases are the phrases you use to demonstrate it's not implied, but EXPLICIT.

It's actually kind of cute to watch you try to weasel your way and change things, hoping no one notices.  In order for it to be a lie I would have had to say that they never claimed to be experts.  Can you show me where I explicitly said that?

Didn't think so.  Now you did try to say, "Show me where they claimed to be experts in that thread."

Now, that's pretty disingenuous, isn't it?  Because they've made a lot more posts in a lot more forums than just that thread.  And I'm not going to go through every forum on the internet looking for every post they ever made.  What I do know, and most reasonable people who have been paying attention would agree, is that over the years, they have in fact positioned themselves as experts of 4e, either directly, or by inference due to their frequent correcting of others as to how 4e is actually played.

QuoteNo, they do not.  I read it.  Carefully.  Looking specifically for your claim.  They don't make that claim.  None of them do.  They're talking about mundane powers on par with spell powers, as in potency, not replicating spells.  Those are the very words used, "on par with".  Nobody makes the claim you're talking about.

Once again, lokaire specifically gives an example of being able to teleport, along with some other abilities.  If you read the thread like you claimed, you would have seen that.

Quote from: soviet;683294So wait now it is your claim that fighters can replicate spells? You were pretty insistent earlier that you never said this, it was the ghostly internet experts.

You know, just because you keep trying to find inconsistency where there is none doesn't mean you'll actually ever find one.

Me:  These people are saying this
You:  You made this claim
Me: No I didn't.  The very first post is me saying the others made that claim.  I don't know enough about 4e to make such a claim
Library lass:  Find one spell that replicates this 4e power
Me: Ok.  How about these.l

There's no inconsistency there.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;683306Me:  These people are saying this
You:  You made this claim
Me: No I didn't.  The very first post is me saying the others made that claim.  I don't know enough about 4e to make such a claim
Library lass:  Find one spell that replicates this 4e power
Me: Ok.  How about these.l

There's no inconsistency there.

You know what? On re-reading that's true, Library Lass did ask you to do that. Fair enough, I retract the point.

Although I also note that that part of the thread started when LL asked you to show an example of a 4e fan claiming what you said, and instead you tried to provide the explanation yourself. So you haven't really answered LL's original question.

Guys, come on, the point is 4e sucks.

We all know that.

WotC knows that.

And anyone who drank the WotC Kool-Aid and supported that pile of shit should hang his head in shame.

Someone contact a behavioral geneticist.  Sac has a complete and total lack of the "resist troll" gene.  It's unbelievable.

:popcorn:

Quote from: Sacrosanct;683306Now you did try to say, "Show me where they claimed to be experts in that thread."

Now, that's pretty disingenuous, isn't it?  Because they've made a lot more posts in a lot more forums than just that thread.  And I'm not going to go through every forum on the internet looking for every post they ever made.  What I do know, and most reasonable people who have been paying attention would agree, is that over the years, they have in fact positioned themselves as experts of 4e, either directly, or by inference due to their frequent correcting of others as to how 4e is actually played.

You said they said they were self-professed experts. I said bullshit they say no such thing.  The you shifted to "it's implied by their actions over years". I repeated your words back to you, and now you're claiming it WAS explicit, just not in that thread, but in some unspecified other thread, somewhere, at some point, which you won't find?

And then you again return to the "by inference" claim, after you previously made it very clear to me you mean they said it explicitly.

So yes Sac, you're a fucking liar.   We just established that.  They didn't proclaim themselves to be experts.  

Now, if "posts for years about 4e, correcting others misconceptions about 4e" qualifies one as a 4e expert, then I would be a 4e expert.  Indeed, a few years ago people joked about the Mistophacy I made concerning 4e, and regularly called me a 4e fanboi.  And I've repeatedly told you that you're wrong about this issue in 4e.  So if that makes one an expert, then I would meet that definition, and I am telling you you're wrong. TCO told you the same thing.

QuoteOnce again, lokaire specifically gives an example of being able to teleport, along with some other abilities.  If you read the thread like you claimed, you would have seen that.

Neither he, nor anyone else, says or implies that mundane powers can replicate spells.  Never.  Not once.  Not Lokaire, not CO, nobody.  There is nothing in that thread which supports your claim.  IF YOU DISAGREE, QUOTE IT.  I've done all that could be done at this point to disprove a negative.  You said it was there, I did a search and didn't find it.  Then I read every post in that thread, and didn't find it.  Then I went back to look at the names you claimed, and never found it.  CO also came here, and said he never said such a thing.  Soviet quoted you the only text in that thread that even uses the word "replicate", and it's one that seems to explain your mistake with CO, and you claimed it wasn't that.

So, if you disagree, at this point the burden is back on you to find it.  Right now, you just look like you were mistaken, and when backed into a corner you just started to lie and make personal attacks and weasel.  It looks bad man.  I never thought of you as one of the assholes.  Right now, that's what you are. Time to put up or shut up.  I am sure you can save face at this point if you just back it down a bit, but will your ego let you?

Let's consult our dear friend Ctrl+F. Lokaire said in that thread you linked:

QuoteHere is what the 4E play style is to me: The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.

So there is a fighter hitting a toe and an Eladrin doing the teleport. Those do not appear to be the same individual. Even if it were an Eladrin Fighter, they would do the teleporting because of Eladrinity.

I prefer 2e and make good use of everything prior. I'm pretty sure I would enjoy playing 4e but running it wasn't my favorite experience (although I did like the way monsters were presented).

I believe 4e would have been more successful if WotC had marketed it as a spin-off game. Call it D&D Tactics or something, produced more Dungeon Delve-type accessories, made minis and Dungeon Tiles/maps more accessible, embracing the board gamey-ness of it instead of trying to shoehorn it into a mold that it wasn't a very good fit for. I think it could have had a much longer lifecycle alongside a more traditional D&D experience instead of trying to replace it.

Also it's nice to be able to say this without fear of some asshole infracting me for it.

Quote from: 1of3;683319Let's consult our dear friend Ctrl+F. Lokaire said in that thread you linked:



So there is a fighter hitting a toe and an Eladrin doing the teleport. Those do not appear to be the same individual. Even if it were an Eladrin Fighter, they would do the teleporting because of Eladrinity.

I don't think Sac would know that the race 'Eladrin' can use a minor teleport ability (regardless of class), so he probably confused the race with a class power at some point.

I said earlier I suspected Sac's mistake was related to him not understanding everything he was reading because he isn't familiar with the 4e rules.  That was one way I've offered him a face-saving way out.  For some bizarre reason he's opted to double-down on his mistake.  All he had to do was make a brief snarky comment along the lines of, "OK fine, I don't know what that shitty game's nonsensical rules all do, so if I mistook a teleporting twinkly-elf power for a fighter power, fine, my bad.  It's still a stupid game with stupid rules, so there".  And it all would have ended there.  But no...he had to push his chips all-in on an obvious bluff.

Quote from: Raven;683320I prefer 2e and make good use of everything prior. I'm pretty sure I would enjoy playing 4e but running it wasn't my favorite experience (although I did like the way monsters were presented).

I believe 4e would have been more successful if WotC had marketed it as a spin-off game. Call it D&D Tactics or something, produced more Dungeon Delve-type accessories, made minis and Dungeon Tiles/maps more accessible, embracing the board gamey-ness of it instead of trying to shoehorn it into a mold that it wasn't a very good fit for. I think it could have had a much longer lifecycle alongside a more traditional D&D experience instead of trying to replace it.

Also it's nice to be able to say this without fear of some asshole infracting me for it.

The boardgames are pretty gangster. It's like the purest distillation of 4e.

Quote from: JonWake;683327The boardgames are pretty gangster. It's like the purest distillation of 4e.

Haven't kept up with them much but Castle Ravenloft looks pretty sweet.

QuoteHere is what the 4E play style is to me: The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.

That's one hell of a sloppy blowjob he just gave 4e.

Quote from: Archangel Fascist;683342That's one hell of a sloppy blowjob he just gave 4e.

Actually, that's the most damning indictment of 4E that I've read. There's nothing in that summary that appeals to me in the slightest.

QuoteHere is what the 4E play style is to me: The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.

(http://i.imgur.com/6nXxs4B.gif)

Quote from: JonWake;683327The boardgames are pretty gangster. It's like the purest distillation of 4e.

I actually enjoy the boardgames a lot. Despite sharing a common vocabulary with 4E, though, the game play is basically completely different. (Which I found surprising, actually. I was expecting a stripped down version of 4E's tactical combat when I bought the games.)

Quote from: soviet;683212I can respect people coming from the TSR edition perspective saying that 3e and 4e are 'not D&D'. But anyone coming from the 3e perspective who says that 4e (only) is 'not D&D' is wrong. 4e is just 3e done right, and almost all of the criticisms applied to 4e are equally as valid against 3e.

I was going to write a lengthy reply to this, but then I realized that there's a level of either stupid or trolling at work here that I'm simply unwilling to engage with.

OTOH, you're debating with Sacrosanct... who also appears to be either trolling the thread by lying about what people said in a different thread on a different board or simply too stupid to realize that he's quoting one thing and then claiming that it says something completely different from what it actually does.

4e is not 3e "done right."  4e stripped out all the good parts of 3e and left the bad.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;683306Me:  These people are saying this
You:  You made this claim
Me: No I didn't.  The very first post is me saying the others made that claim.  I don't know enough about 4e to make such a claim
Library lass:  Find one spell that replicates this 4e power
Me: Ok.  How about these.l

None of those spells have the same effect-- fuck, most of them don't even exist in 4e. I'm pretty sure Charm Person is the only one that does, in fact. Now if they did, could they have the same result-- that an unwilling target is moved closer to the fighter? Yes, but in different ways or for different reasons. It's no more the same than Finger of Death is the same as a poisoned arrow. Argue like you mean it.

Quote from: LibraryLass;683289Show me a spell that does what Come and Get it does. Show me even one.

AD&D 2e wizard spell Taunt.

You're welcome.
;)

Quote from: Opaopajr;683381AD&D 2e wizard spell Taunt.

You're welcome.
;)

Okay. I meant, like, a 4e spell, but I'll admit you got me there.

Mommy and daddy, stop fighting! Waahhh! *stamps out of the room*
:(

Won't someone think of the chi'rren?

Quote from: LibraryLass;683382Okay. I meant, like, a 4e spell, but I'll admit you got me there.

That is a bit of a goalpost move, isn't it? We are talking about a shared D&D corpus here, right? Or is it really a separate game unto itself? We must pick one.
;)

Quote from: Opaopajr;683385That is a bit of a goalpost move, isn't it? We are talking about a shared D&D corpus here, right? Or is it really a separate game unto itself? We must pick one.
;)

As far as I'm concerned, it is a separate game, just one that is enjoyable and has (as far as I'm concerned) a valid claim to the name.

Edit: And thus merits some consideration in a subsequent D&D that has an explicit goal of being the big tent of D&D.

Well see, there's the rub. Posters were stating that previously magical effects were being duplicated across classes in a rather dissociated manner. Hence the "fighters casting spells" comment. That created enough brand name cognitive dissonance for players to complain about the game's claim to direct ancestry.

Now I myself agree with you that it is on its face a very different game. And the only claim to ancestry is a few core functions and licensed characters. Thus a claim to direct successorship falls flat; a name, a die mechanic, and a licensed monster is not enough. If the game was labeled D&D Tactics a lot of this animus would not even be present.

However, there is an insistence to this "direct line" claim, and thus the kerfuffle -- and design struggle for Next's soul. If it were so easily traced a direct line, designing a happy medium wouldn't be this hard for WotC. But it isn't; and that's forcing a lot of past edition warrior claims to be eaten as crow instead. The complaining and dodging is expected, naturally.

Quote from: 1989;683312Guys, come on, the point is 4e sucks.

We all know that.

WotC knows that.

And anyone who drank the WotC Kool-Aid and supported that pile of shit should hang his head in shame.

Yep. Well said.

Hm, I've found myself agreeing with 1989 throughout reading this thread.

It's a kinda weird sensation.

Guys, if 4E was as awesome and wonderful as it is being reported to have been then why has the compony that published it declared it a failure and is coming out with a new version of D&D to replace it?

Sacrosanct, there's three reasons you're being dogpiled by people who play 4e and not being particularly defended by people who don't like it.

1. You're wrong. The resource management is similar to Vance for all classes, but legitimately "spell-like" effects are pretty damn scarce in 4e even for the spellcasters. There are a lot of very dull damage + minor effects powers for absolutely fucking everybody. And that's how everybody's on par. I'm not sure why 4e fans find this shit "exciting" or "important" in the same way as a spell. But making those claims is not the same as saying that something "replicates" a spell.

I would ask you to read 4e, but it is almost as tedious as the threads you linked, so I don't expect you to actually wade through it.

2. If you weren't wrong, you are still just feeding trolls. Who gives a shit? 4e is dead and whether martial powers replicated spells is entirely not relevant to a discussion of the next stage of the playtest of 5e.

3. The entire discussion is insanely boring. Okay you don't want to pull quotes for the people arguing against you. But nobody's going to read that shit to back you up either. You're conflating some stupid shit again and again ("on par" must be "replicating") and like four people have to repeat the distinction again and again. Everybody who wasn't involved in the tangent has had to sit there and read you guys restating your positions for several pages now.

Shit like this makes the RPGSite boring to lurk.

EDIT: Everybody arguing *against* Sac is still doing 2 and 3. Still insanely fucking tedious when everybody else does it.

Quote from: jeff37923;683433Guys, if 4E was as awesome and wonderful as it is being reported to have been then why has the compony that published it declared it a failure and is coming out with a new version of D&D to replace it?

Because (purportedly, I don't have the knowledge to verify it myself) the goals that Hasbro's higher-ups set for 4e were unrealistic for any RPG. The gamer market simply isn't big enough and the casual market is resistant to growth.

I emphasize again that this is what I've heard, not necessarily what I believe (though it wouldn't surprise me and it won't surprise me if Next falls to a similar fate).

Quote from: jeff37923;683433Guys, if 4E was as awesome and wonderful as it is being reported to have been then why has the compony that published it declared it a failure and is coming out with a new version of D&D to replace it?

Because it was released under the Dungeons & Dragon brand and did not sell as well as its predecessors. And it is obvious a major contributor to the reduced sales that despite the branding the game was not D&D.

It like if the International Chess Federation trying to push a new edition of Chess that turned about to be a game much like Go. Both International Chess and Go are good games but people come to the International Chess Federation expecting to play Chess not Go.

Likewise D&D 4e is not a D&D game. It is a fun game with a good design for detailed tactical combat but it still not D&D. And because of that it failed in the marketplace and Pathfinder became for many the current D&D edition.

And remember it failed as a D&D game, failed as a Wizards product. Any other RPG Company would be ecstatic with the sales of D&D 4e.

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;683268This is a fantasy game and a fantasy world. A heroic Fighter PC is not mundane as far as I'm concerned, especially not a high levels. He's more like Jubei from Ninja Scroll than joe blow #6 with a sword. There is no such thing as mundane terms, the point is to not be mundane. My fantasy isn't so narrow that magic is the only not-mundane.

Thats great. Enjoy. I just prefer that D&D remain D&D. I'm not against ninja scroll warriors existing-it just isn't D&D.

Quote from: Rincewind1;683352(http://i.imgur.com/6nXxs4B.gif)

:rotfl:

Quote from: LibraryLass;683378None of those spells have the same effect-- fuck, most of them don't even exist in 4e. I'm pretty sure Charm Person is the only one that does, in fact. Now if they did, could they have the same result-- that an unwilling target is moved closer to the fighter? Yes, but in different ways or for different reasons. It's no more the same than Finger of Death is the same as a poisoned arrow. Argue like you mean it.

If the poisoned arrow didn't require an arrow, poison, and a bow to fire it sure they are roughly the same.

The D&D game is one of fantasy and magic. There is a very distinct line regarding what is supernatural/magic and what isn't.

4E is a game of powers, each with its own power source. All powers just "do stuff". Magic or mundane isn't an issue. Powers just work because they do.

4E is thus, a supers game. The PCs wear armor or robes instead of spandex but underneath the fantasy dressing, the genre is supers.

1) Everyone has powers and is "special".
2) The default assumption is that PCs are heroic.
3) This pretty much defines the supers genre.

So 4E is a fine fantasy supers game but it has fuckall to do with D&D.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;683464Thats great. Enjoy. I just prefer that D&D remain D&D. I'm not against ninja scroll warriors existing-it just isn't D&D.
.

I really enjoy wuxia style fantasy games, but this is how I feel as well about D&D. A wuxia or anime module would be great to fit on top of the core system, but it shouldn't be default. I don't see most of my normal D&D campaigns going that direction.

I recently ran a wuxia D&D game, and I opted to use 3E instead of 4E for it. My lack of experience with 4E may have been a factor, but I found I had greater flexibility with 3E, by picking and choosing which prestige classes, feats, etc to allow and by putting in a few optional rapid heal rules. 4E may have been a good choice as well, but I just didn't know the system as well.

Quote from: Opaopajr;683385That is a bit of a goalpost move, isn't it? We are talking about a shared D&D corpus here, right? Or is it really a separate game unto itself? We must pick one.
;)

"4e powers do not replicate spell effects, so that entire argument if false!"

"Here you are."

"Well, not spells that are in 4e anyway...."

:facepalm


Especially when we're talking about what should go into Next, and is not 4e specific.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;683485"4e powers do not replicate spell effects, so that entire argument if false!"

"Here you are."

"Well, not spells that are in 4e anyway...."

:facepalm


Especially when we're talking about what should go into Next, and is not 4e specific.

I meant spells in 4e (i.e., arcane powers) all along. I thought you did too, up until that point. That's not a goalpost move, that's us not communicating.

That's ok. Reading what someone meant, instead of what they wrote, is pretty much the foundation for scholarship.
:)
Wait, I don't think I'm helping much, am I?

Quote from: Opaopajr;683514That's ok. Reading what someone meant, instead of what they wrote, is pretty much the foundation for scholarship.
:)
Wait, I don't think I'm helping much, am I?

I suspect we're beyond helping at this point, doomed to clash pointlessly until one of us gets bored and wanders off, leaving the other to smugly claim victory. (Spoiler alert: I'm the one who's bored)

Anyone defending 4e is automatically the loser.

Quote from: 1989;683542Anyone defending 4e is automatically the loser.

But that's not very balanced or fun, is it?

With all these editions, powers, weapons and abilities we should all be WINNERS!

Anyone who says otherwise is obviously having badwrongfun and intentionally playing against the systems to prove a hollow point.

Quote from: jeff37923;683433Guys, if 4E was as awesome and wonderful as it is being reported to have been then why has the compony that published it declared it a failure and is coming out with a new version of D&D to replace it?

It did not make enough money to please the Hasbro corporate masters.

This is a concept you understand.  You understand that Firefly was a good TV show that did not make enough money to please its Fox masters.  You understand that The Wizard of Oz was a good movie that did not make enough to please its MGM masters.  This concept, that something can be both good AND not make sufficient profit to please a larger corporation, is not new to you.  It's a concept you completely understand - right up until it's about a product you don't personally like.  And then, all of a sudden, it seems like a good argument to you.  Gee, I wonder why that might be?

4e was a fine RPG.  It's not my favorite version of D&D anymore, but it was a fine RPG.  The fact that it didn't make enough profit to please Hasbro is not, in itself, proof it was a bad product.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;682376Exactly.  Love or hate D&D as a game, there are certain things that made it what it was.  When you turn all of that on its head and effectively rewrite a completely different game, it no longer feels like D&D to me.  That, IMO, is one of the biggest flaws of 4e.  Sure, might be a great tactical RPG on it's own right, but it never had the D&D feel that made D&D what it was for 30 years prior.

That's the same thing that I hear in "real life" over and over.  I don't think it's discussed much at rpgnet because it's viewed as edition warring and is likely to draw a ban.  In fact, several very common criticisms of 4e (such as disassociated mechanics) are also grounds for banning, because one or more of the moderators decided that it wasn't true or valid.

I can understand, in principle, why that site wanted to bar edition warring.  But the result, I'm afraid, is that popular criticism of 4e has been stifled.  If so, then it's no wonder that we see posters over there scratching their heads, wondering why nationwide polls with many thousands of participants consistently lean in the opposite direction from the predominant opinions on the big purple subforum.

That sort of thing happens when you screw with freedom of expression.

So, instead we are told that the polls are wrong, or badly worded or that the people participating in them aren't really potential consumers.  This is the "denial phase" of the grief process.

It's also a sad reminder for internet forum celebrities that they aren't really as celebrated as they think they are, in the bigger scheme of things.

Quote from: 1989;683542Anyone defending 4e is automatically the loser.

:rotfl: Says the 2e fan! :rotfl:

2e did losing right.  2e fans were the red headed stepchildren for decades.  Your suffering showed the 4e fans how it's done.  You being the bully now to 4e fans in response to decades of being bullied by fans of 1e and 3e and other games would be fucking hilarious, if it weren't tinged with sadness.

Naw...it's still fucking hilarious.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;683485"4e powers do not replicate spell effects, so that entire argument if false!"

"Here you are."

"Well, not spells that are in 4e anyway...."

:facepalm


Especially when we're talking about what should go into Next, and is not 4e specific.

So, you just keep lying on top of your lying.

Everyone here remembers the context of what you said.  You said IT WAS NOT YOUR OPINION YOU WERE QUOTING, BUT THE QUOTING OF *4E* EXPERTS.  You argued that loud and proud.  It was utterly, bloody obvious you were saying that a 4e expert said that in 4e, 4e spells were being replicated by 4e mundane powers, because you claimed to be quoting people who were 4e experts speaking about the 4e rules.  It was the heart of your criticism that this meant that 4e was a stupid game, that mundane powers would replicate other non-mundane spells in that game.  None of this had anything to do with their knowledge of prior games.  The idea that you thought those 4e experts were talking about 2e spells - spells they likely have no knowledge of because they never even played 2e and never once mentioned 2e in that entire thread - is a blatant lie on your part.  

It's an obvious attempt to weasel out of dealing with this issue.  You don't want to admit you were wrong, so you grabbed onto any fucking possible way out that let you save face, and so you took that stupid 2e spell life-jacket you thought someone was tossing you.  But they weren't tossing it to you - it had nothing to do with your idiotic claim.  For you, it just fucking sinks.

You know, I get it.  You deserve a way out of this hole you dug for yourself.  If you're not confident enough in yourself to be able to admit when you're wrong, OK.  You're my peer, a fellow gamer who loves the same things I love, and I have no good reason to see you squirm like this.  You don't like a game that I don't even fucking play anymore.  It's not your fault you don't know the 4e rules, because you never read them, and so you didn't really get what you were reading in those 4e threads.  That's cool, no reason you need to read rules for a game that's not your thing.  I wish you'd just admit that, but if it's not something you find yourself able to do, OK then.  Who am I to judge someone for putting their foot in their mouth?

So, here's your way out:  Just fucking drop it already.  Just stop replying to this aspect of the thread.  Go back to talking about 5e, and just let this whole thing drop.  Stop talking about it - stop putting lies on top of lies, stop the weaseling and grasping at straws and search for a way out.  Just let it go.  And I will let it go as well.  And I strongly suspect Soviet and others will as well.  And if those guys try and take a last word - just don't respond.  Take a breath, and move on.

Damn, I hope that puts an end to this boring ass debate.

Quote from: LibraryLass;683289Show me a spell that does what Come and Get it does. Show me even one.

I am unfamiliar with this feat, but based on the way it is being talked about I wonder if this (with the approach function) isn't close:

QuoteCommand, Greater
Enchantment (Compulsion) [Language-Dependent, Mind-Affecting]  
Level: Clr 5, Nobility 5  
Components: V  
Casting time: 1 standard action  
Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)  
Targets: One creature/level, no two of which can be more than 30 ft. apart  
Duration: 1 round/level  

 You give creatures a single command, which they obey to the best of their ability at their earliest opportunity. You may select from the following options. At the start of each commanded creature's action after the first, it gets another Will save to attempt to break free from the spell. Each creature must receive the same command.

Approach: On its turn, the subject moves toward you as quickly and directly as possible for 1 round. The creature may do nothing but move during its turn, and it provokes attacks of opportunity for this movement as normal.

Or does the fighter power have a different function.  I am not a 4E expert, and while I played it for a couple of years I definitely did not learn classes other than the one I was playing (rogue)

Quote from: Archangel Fascist;6833774e is not 3e "done right."  4e stripped out all the good parts of 3e and left the bad.

If what you want is TSR D&D, sure. But then 3e is just TSR D&D broken in half and with a shit ton of added complexity. Why wouldn't you play TSR D&D at that point?

Quote from: Mistwell;6835514e was a fine RPG.  It's not my favorite version of D&D anymore, but it was a fine RPG.  

So 4E was a failure in your eyes as well, since it is not your favorite anymore.

4e and 3e are not the same.  4e is not 3e done "right".  While both are D&D, they're not the same, any more than 3e and 2e were the same.  I could go on about the differences, but I think everyone already knows most of them, and I don't think anyone really wants to have that stupid debate again anyway.

My new favorite 4venger whine is "I don't just want 4e again I just want something NEW, like they did with 4e!"

Oh really? And how did that work out?

Not that I actually believe them, lying dipshits that they are, but its a funny thought.

Quote from: Saplatt;683552That's the same thing that I hear in "real life" over and over.  I don't think it's discussed much at rpgnet because it's viewed as edition warring and is likely to draw a ban.  In fact, several very common criticisms of 4e (such as disassociated mechanics) are also grounds for banning, because one or more of the moderators decided that it wasn't true or valid.

I can understand, in principle, why that site wanted to bar edition warring.  But the result, I'm afraid, is that popular criticism of 4e has been stifled.  If so, then it's no wonder that we see posters over there scratching their heads, wondering why nationwide polls with many thousands of participants consistently lean in the opposite direction from the predominant opinions on the big purple subforum.

That sort of thing happens when you screw with freedom of expression.

So, instead we are told that the polls are wrong, or badly worded or that the people participating in them aren't really potential consumers.  This is the "denial phase" of the grief process.

It's also a sad reminder for internet forum celebrities that they aren't really as celebrated as they think they are, in the bigger scheme of things.

TBP policy of avoiding confrontation to create "an emotionally safe place" has resulted in conversation being stifled.

Quote from: Mistwell;6835654e and 3e are not the same.  4e is not 3e done "right".  While both are D&D, they're not the same, any more than 3e and 2e were the same.  I could go on about the differences, but I think everyone already knows most of them, and I don't think anyone really wants to have that stupid debate again anyway.

Yeah they are different but I think it's fair to say they share a strain of DNA different than TSR D&D. "Builds", and "balance" in the broad sense and feats, skills, etc... In the narrow.

Quote from: Mistwell;6835654e and 3e are not the same.  4e is not 3e done "right".  While both are D&D, they're not the same, any more than 3e and 2e were the same.  I could go on about the differences, but I think everyone already knows most of them, and I don't think anyone really wants to have that stupid debate again anyway.

Except for you.

Quote from: jeff37923;683563So 4E was a failure in your eyes as well, since it is not your favorite anymore.

Of course a game is not a failure simply because it's not my favorite anymore. 1e D&D was my favorite D&D for years, but that does not make it a failure because eventually I liked 3e more.  Star Wars: A New Hope was my favorite movie for years, but that doesn't make it a failure because it's no longer my favorite movie.  

Surely there was a version of Traveler that was your favorite, until at some point you moved on to liking a different version of Traveler?

Quote from: Piestrio;683569Yeah they are different but I think it's fair to say they share a strain of DNA different than TSR D&D. "Builds", and "balance" in the broad sense and feats, skills, etc... In the narrow.

Yes, I agree.

Quote from: LibraryLass;683522I suspect we're beyond helping at this point, doomed to clash pointlessly until one of us gets bored and wanders off, leaving the other to smugly claim victory. (Spoiler alert: I'm the one who's bored)

It's been a rather standard fare topic flameout. I was wondering why you bothered for so many pages. But at least I got to answer a question for you. See, some good came from this!
:)

Quote from: Votan;683561I am unfamiliar with this feat, but based on the way it is being talked about I wonder if this (with the approach function) isn't close:



Or does the fighter power have a different function.  I am not a 4E expert, and while I played it for a couple of years I definitely did not learn classes other than the one I was playing (rogue)

Here's Come and Get It

QuoteCome and Get It                           Fighter Attack 7
You brandish your weapon and call out to your foes,
luring them close through their overconfidence, and
then deliver a spinning strike against them all.
Encounter        Martial, Weapon
Standard Action      Close burst 3
Target: Each enemy you can see in the burst
Attack: Strength vs. Will
Hit: You pull the target up to 2 squares, but only if it
can end the pull adjacent to you. If the target is adjacent
to you after the pull, it takes 1[W] damage.

It's similar but I wouldn't call it the same. Come and Get It isn't language-dependent, it's not a mind-control effect (like I said, it's more of a narrative-necessity thing, which one can definitely call bullshit and I wouldn't fault them, but I'd think of it as being a different line of thinking because mind-affecting spells are forcing the opponent's hand diegetically. To put it another way, with Greater Command, the Cleric is forcing his opponents to approach him, with Come and Get It, the fighter's player is forcing his opponents to approach him.), and Greater Command doesn't end with the caster automatically smacking everyone who ended up in his reach. Similar, but I don't think I'd call them equivalent, you know?

To me that's the crucial difference, one is describing what happened, the other is describing why it happened.

I think the analogy I used upthread was a Finger of Death spell vs. shooting someone with a poisoned arrow. They have a comparable effect (The target saves vs fortitude or poison/death ray depending on the edition, if the save fails it dies) but few would say they're equivalent.

Quote from: Mistwell;683574Surely there was a version of Traveler that was your favorite, until at some point you moved on to liking a different version of Traveler?

No, I've never liked Traveler.

Traveller, on the other hand, I view as a tool. Certain versions are a better fitting tool for the campaign ideas that I have. Each has its advantages and disadvantages. It is a very good tool, but still a tool for playing RPGs.

That is like 4E. If I wanted to play a version of D&D that resembles WoW and provides a good boardgame miniatures version of that with a twink wushu flavor reminiscant of Exalted - then 4E is the version of D&D I would use. It is just that the playstyle of 4E does not appeal to me.

The rabid 4E fanatics are a turn-off as well. Not the fans, the fanatics (why I keep using the terms 4venger and 4ron).

Quote from: Sacrosanct;682042Most of them haven't done any professional testing.  From day 1, they keep saying the test fails because it doesn't give them what they want.  That's not the point of testing.  The point of testing is to see if it's working how it was designed, not how you personally want it.

I'll give you an example.  The whole DC debacle about a month or so ago.  They kept crying that the math was broken because a high level character shouldn't have a chance at failing at something like a tightrope walk.  Nothing in the math was broken.  The DC system worked great.  The only issue was whether or not your personal preference of what the DC should be for a tightrope act.

I think the usual suspects over there seem to think their subjectivity means objectivity to everyone else.

I figured that if, at some point, the TBP gang suddenly started liking DDN universally then that would be a clear sign that DDN had gone horribly, horribly wrong. The fact that the hate continues to percolate is a good sign.

Quote from: LibraryLass;683578Here's Come and Get It



It's similar but I wouldn't call it the same. Come and Get It isn't language-dependent, it's not a mind-control effect (like I said, it's more of a narrative-necessity thing, which one can definitely call bullshit and I wouldn't fault them, but I'd think of it as being a different line of thinking because mind-affecting spells are forcing the opponent's hand diegetically. To put it another way, with Greater Command, the Cleric is forcing his opponents to approach him, with Come and Get It, the fighter's player is forcing his opponents to approach him.), and Greater Command doesn't end with the caster automatically smacking everyone who ended up in his reach. Similar, but I don't think I'd call them equivalent, you know?

To me that's the crucial difference, one is describing what happened, the other is describing why it happened.

I think the analogy I used upthread was a Finger of Death spell vs. shooting someone with a poisoned arrow. They have a comparable effect (The target saves vs fortitude or poison/death ray depending on the edition, if the save fails it dies) but few would say they're equivalent.

I have years of 4e experience; I play it, and gm it, both, currently.

I hate 'Come and Get it'  because no matter how much a warrior insults a mages mother, or calls him a coward, the mage is NOT going to walk over and get stabbed. period.

Well, most mages anyway.

Some 4E martial powers cross the line from martial to mystical in my opinion, and I don't usually like that.

Unless its a mystic warrior :)

Quote from: camazotz;683580I figured that if, at some point, the TBP gang suddenly started liking DDN universally then that would be a clear sign that DDN had gone horribly, horribly wrong. The fact that the hate continues to percolate is a good sign.

The best news about them announcing the end of the playtest?  Because it's that much closer to when Next becomes official, then is protected by their "edition war" rule.


Supposedly anyway.

Quote from: Bill;683586I have years of 4e experience; I play it, and gm it, both, currently.

I hate 'Come and Get it'  because no matter how much a warrior insults a mages mother, or calls him a coward, the mage is NOT going to walk over and get stabbed. period.

Well, most mages anyway.

Some 4E martial powers cross the line from martial to mystical in my opinion, and I don't usually like that.

Unless its a mystic warrior :)

I like Come and Get It but it's certainly at the far end of what a martial character should be able to do. I think it was a deliberate gesture by WotC to fighter players (such as myself) who had maybe had a shitty time of it during 3e, a sign to say 'hey fighters can be cool again'. You might say this was an overreaction on their part but I appreciated the thought. In any event it is one of a small number of outliers in hundreds of much more mundane martial powers.

I do think though that with powers like that there is a responsibility on the part of the player to come up with a good description that really sells the effect. 'Uh I come and get it and he walks over' is bad play plain and simple. My fighter has had CAGI throughout the life of 4e and I've come up with a lot of good explanations, including imitating a roar of challenge against werehyena things, using my undead-slaying magic sword to emanate holy energy and present the biggest threat to a bunch of sword wraiths, and of course doing various bluffs, tricks, and feigned injuries to orcs, soldiers, and enemy spellcasters.

Quote from: soviet;683597I do think though that with powers like that there is a responsibility on the part of the player to come up with a good description that really sells the effect. 'Uh I come and get it and he walks over' is bad play plain and simple. My fighter has had CAGI throughout the life of 4e and I've come up with a lot of good explanations, including imitating a roar of challenge against werehyena things, using my undead-slaying magic sword to emanate holy energy and present the biggest threat to a bunch of sword wraiths, and of course doing various bluffs, tricks, and feigned injuries to orcs, soldiers, and enemy spellcasters.

For the mindless constructs and oozes I suppose you just invited them over for a BBQ?

Quote from: soviet;683597I like Come and Get It but it's certainly at the far end of what a martial character should be able to do. I think it was a deliberate gesture by WotC to fighter players (such as myself) who had maybe had a shitty time of it during 3e, a sign to say 'hey fighters can be cool again'. You might say this was an overreaction on their part but I appreciated the thought. In any event it is one of a small number of outliers in hundreds of much more mundane martial powers.

I do think though that with powers like that there is a responsibility on the part of the player to come up with a good description that really sells the effect. 'Uh I come and get it and he walks over' is bad play plain and simple. My fighter has had CAGI throughout the life of 4e and I've come up with a lot of good explanations, including imitating a roar of challenge against werehyena things, using my undead-slaying magic sword to emanate holy energy and present the biggest threat to a bunch of sword wraiths, and of course doing various bluffs, tricks, and feigned injuries to orcs, soldiers, and enemy spellcasters.

Its a stretch that a wizard who is a non Mellie type would ever move toward a fighter and get stabbed.

If you were playing a wizard, would you do that?

When I gm 4e I leave the power as it is written, but it bends believability at times.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;683602For the mindless constructs and oozes I suppose you just invited them over for a BBQ?

Seduction attempt actually - a spray of sex panther and it's all over

Come And Get It

Material Component: AXE Body Spray

(Not that there is anything funny about soviet wanting to seduce mindless constructs or oozes....)

Quote from: soviet;683607Seduction attempt actually - a spray of sex panther and it's all over

Once you go Grey Ooze nothing else can ever satisfy.

Quote from: jeff37923;683611Come And Get It

Material Component: AXE Body Spray

(Not that there is anything funny about soviet wanting to seduce mindless constructs or oozes....)

You seem nervous... which do you think you are? :-)

Quote from: Exploderwizard;683602For the mindless constructs and oozes I suppose you just invited them over for a BBQ?

Quote from: Bill;683606Its a stretch that a wizard who is a non Mellie type would ever move toward a fighter and get stabbed.

Some of it's supposed to be your ability to provoke and piss off your opponent so they're not thinking rationally - I've seen people do *very* stupid things when pissed off, and done some *very* stupid things when pissed off.  And if you think people think rationally and coolly when in the middle of anything resembling a fight, then you probably haven't been in one.

But, yeah, there are times when it (and the general 4e policy of 'powers *work*, but the justification may be different') stretch believability.  So if you're going to play 4e, you just have to kind of come to terms with the fact that there are things in it that don't make total sense if you deconstruct them, accept it, and get on with the game because you like the other things it does well enough.

For me, that's no different than hp in any version of D&D, or lots of other things that are embedded into the game.  They work well enough in most cases, and in most cases you can come up with some kind of justification (even if it's not always the same one), but there are some edges that are just insane.  So if I'm playing D&D (any edition), I just shrug my shoulders, turn my suspension of disbelief to eleven, and get on with the things in the game that make it fun.

I may have an easier time with it, ironically, from my years playing GURPS.  I'm so used to a more realistic injury/damage/etc. system that I have to crank my suspension of disbelief up to get past hp, and so some of the illogical bits in 4e don't bug me as much.  If I was primarily a D&D player all along, and had really well internalized hp to the point where I *didn't* notice them, I could see the *new* illogical bits in 4e (as opposed to the old illogical bits from 3.x and before) seriously bugging me.

I don't think that "Come and Get It" is really the problem people have with 4e.  I think if they liked the game as a whole, they could get over it.  I think it's mainly that 4e is a different game that targets and satisfies different 'needs', and de-emphasizes some of the needs that 3.x satisfied very, very well.

Since one would assume that after close to ten years of 3.x, there would have been some self-selection in the playerbase for people *with* those needs, it's easy to see where there'd be a disconnect and disgust from 3.x fans going to 4e.

The fact that they smacked into the uncanny valley with the game mechanics (things are 'kinda like' earlier D&D, but different - see:  Saving Throws), it's not surprising to me at all that the game got such a visceral reaction.  Again, the uncanny valley effect probably hit me less because most of my gaming history *wasn't* D&D.

Quote from: soviet;683618You seem nervous... which do you think you are? :-)

Ooze, of course. I am only a mindless construct when in my sporangia phase.

I'm just worried that I might be sitting across the table from this should we meet. :p

(https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/7745973760/hE29D8C3F/)

Quote from: Mistwell;683551It did not make enough money to please the Hasbro corporate masters.

4E didn't appeal to enough existing players, and didn't attract enough new players, to meet WotC's goals. Not making enough money to please Hasbro was a side-effect of that unpopularity.

You just have to listen to the comments by the Next developers. We lost track of what D&D fans really wanted. WotC sees everyone who has ever played D&D and everyone who has ever been curious about playing D&D as their target market. Whatever the merits of 4E as a game or the profits it generated for WotC, it did not appeal to enough of that market. The design principals of 5E make that unerringly clear.

Quote from: camazotz;683580I figured that if, at some point, the TBP gang suddenly started liking DDN universally then that would be a clear sign that DDN had gone horribly, horribly wrong. The fact that the hate continues to percolate is a good sign.

Yep. It drives them nuts that the biggest RPG publisher in the world, by far, has utterly rejected their design principles. Since those principles are largely nonsense, that can only be a good thing.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;683591The best news about them announcing the end of the playtest?  Because it's that much closer to when Next becomes official, then is protected by their "edition war" rule.


Supposedly anyway.

I expect to see a final conflagration of rage, hysteria, and bannings of Next fans in the days immediately before publication. Kind of a Gotterdamerung of the 4E system-first zealots. And of course, I expect insurgents will continue to snipe in 5E threads with impunity, tolerated by sympathetic mods.

Quote from: jeff37923;683637Ooze, of course. I am only a mindless construct when in my sporangia phase.

I'm just worried that I might be sitting across the table from this should we meet. :p

(https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/7745973760/hE29D8C3F/)

Why does shadowrun have a pink pony on the cover?

Quote from: LibraryLass;683578Here's Come and Get It



It's similar but I wouldn't call it the same. Come and Get It isn't language-dependent, it's not a mind-control effect (like I said, it's more of a narrative-necessity thing, which one can definitely call bullshit and I wouldn't fault them, but I'd think of it as being a different line of thinking because mind-affecting spells are forcing the opponent's hand diegetically. To put it another way, with Greater Command, the Cleric is forcing his opponents to approach him, with Come and Get It, the fighter's player is forcing his opponents to approach him.), and Greater Command doesn't end with the caster automatically smacking everyone who ended up in his reach. Similar, but I don't think I'd call them equivalent, you know?

To me that's the crucial difference, one is describing what happened, the other is describing why it happened.

I think the analogy I used upthread was a Finger of Death spell vs. shooting someone with a poisoned arrow. They have a comparable effect (The target saves vs fortitude or poison/death ray depending on the edition, if the save fails it dies) but few would say they're equivalent.

Ah, okay. Thanks for the explanation.

In general, the Fighter powers really seem to be a way to try and model the dynamic nature of combat coupled with a turn based movement system (like attacks of opportunity were in 3rd edition).  I certainly got that impression with the Rogue and the powers that were available in that class.  Now whether it was a good emulation is a very different question.

Quote from: Votan;683643Ah, okay. Thanks for the explanation.

In general, the Fighter powers really seem to be a way to try and model the dynamic nature of combat coupled with a turn based movement system (like attacks of opportunity were in 3rd edition).  I certainly got that impression with the Rogue and the powers that were available in that class.  Now whether it was a good emulation is a very different question.

I guess my issue with stuff like come and get it is struck me as very WWE "Saruman, your momma wears combat boots. You're going down, brother!" I just could never quite shake that image from my head with that ability. I will concede people don't always do what is wise, but it seemed slightly comic to me to exert that kind of influence with a taunt.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;683647I guess my issue with stuff like come and get it is struck me as very WWE "Saruman, your momma wears combat boots. You're going down, brother!" I just could never quite shake that image from my head with that ability. I will concede people don't always do what is wise, but it seemed slightly comic to me to exert that kind of influence with a taunt.

I suspect that it was an attempt to bundle the effect of a wide range of tactical effects together under a single mechanic.  Whereas in previous editions I would describe what my fighter was doing to try and come to grips with Saruman, the 4E approach just implements a mechanic that assumes that a veteran fighter had a trick to get the wizard close.  

I dislike it for the same reason I dislike defender mechanics.  But it does take out the issue of different DMs adjudicating creativity and tactical plans differently.  In some senses that can be a good thing if consistency between tables is an important design goal.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;683647I guess my issue with stuff like come and get it is struck me as very WWE "Saruman, your momma wears combat boots. You're going down, brother!" I just could never quite shake that image from my head with that ability. I will concede people don't always do what is wise, but it seemed slightly comic to me to exert that kind of influence with a taunt.

:rotfl:

THAT is something (completely silly) that I can accept as highly improbable, but possible, laugh and move on.

Its because the same kind of taunt also works on a zombie that there are issues.

It is an example of the larger problem of rules first, game world a distant second that makes the system so jarring.

Quote from: Haffrung;6836414E didn't appeal to enough existing players, and didn't attract enough new players, to meet WotC's goals. Not making enough money to please Hasbro was a side-effect of that unpopularity.

You just have to listen to the comments by the Next developers. We lost track of what D&D fans really wanted.

That's true of all editions though. When you make a new edition you get someone in to fix what they think the flaws of the previous edition were, and the critics of the previous edition are part of your audience so you appeal to them in your advertising. It'll be true of 6e as well.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;683654:rotfl:

THAT is something (completely silly) that I can accept as highly improbable, but possible, laugh and move on.

Its because the same kind of taunt also works on a zombie that there are issues.

It is an example of the larger problem of rules first, game world a distant second that makes the system so jarring.

I think 4e relies on players being able to justify the use of their powers through description. If you've got players who can and will do that, a lot of the 'that's jarring' problem goes away.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;683642Why does shadowrun have a pink pony on the cover?

It's a photoshop, sadly.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;683647I guess my issue with stuff like come and get it is struck me as very WWE "Saruman, your momma wears combat boots. You're going down, brother!" I just could never quite shake that image from my head with that ability. I will concede people don't always do what is wise, but it seemed slightly comic to me to exert that kind of influence with a taunt.

I actually had a fighter in 4e at one point that was flavored as a professional wrestler. It was pretty fucking fun.

Quote from: soviet;683655That's true of all editions though. When you make a new edition you get someone in to fix what they think the flaws of the previous edition were, and the critics of the previous edition are part of your audience so you appeal to them in your advertising. It'll be true of 6e as well.

I don't think that's true. Previous editions have been promoted as doing what you always wanted D&D to do, but in a better way. WotC is admitting that with 4E they took D&D in the wrong direction altogether.

Quote from: soviet;683659I think 4e relies on players being able to justify the use of their powers through description. If you've got players who can and will do that, a lot of the 'that's jarring' problem goes away.

Justify the use of their powers? You mean play mother fucking may I? :rolleyes:

Quote from: Exploderwizard;683674Justify the use of their powers? You mean play mother fucking may I? :rolleyes:

I'm pretty sure that's not what he meant.  "Come up with a description for how this makes sense" is probably closer to what he meant.

Not justify in terms of asking the GM if they can use the power.

Quote from: jeff37923;683637Ooze, of course. I am only a mindless construct when in my sporangia phase.

I'm just worried that I might be sitting across the table from this should we meet. :p

(https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/7745973760/hE29D8C3F/)

What was seen can not be unseen.

Quote from: jeff37923;683579No, I've never liked Traveler.

Traveller, on the other hand, I view as a tool. Certain versions are a better fitting tool for the campaign ideas that I have. Each has its advantages and disadvantages. It is a very good tool, but still a tool for playing RPGs.

That is like 4E. If I wanted to play a version of D&D that resembles WoW and provides a good boardgame miniatures version of that with a twink wushu flavor reminiscant of Exalted - then 4E is the version of D&D I would use. It is just that the playstyle of 4E does not appeal to me.

The rabid 4E fanatics are a turn-off as well. Not the fans, the fanatics (why I keep using the terms 4venger and 4ron).

I agree the rabid 4e fanatics are a turn-off.  The rabid Pathfinder fanatics are a turn-off for me as well.  Rabid fandom in general makes me instinctively pull away.  I can sometimes get over it, and I don't know if my reaction is a "fair" reaction, but it's a real reaction.

Quote from: Bill;683586I have years of 4e experience; I play it, and gm it, both, currently.

I hate 'Come and Get it'  because no matter how much a warrior insults a mages mother, or calls him a coward, the mage is NOT going to walk over and get stabbed. period.

Well, most mages anyway.

Some 4E martial powers cross the line from martial to mystical in my opinion, and I don't usually like that.

Unless its a mystic warrior :)

Yeah see I never viewed the power as magical in nature, I viewed it as story-game in nature.  As in the player was taking narrative control over the monster and making them move to a specific spot, not through magic, but through some sort of fucked-up mundane taunt power that had something similar to an intimidate power involved.

Quote from: LibraryLass;683289Show me a spell that does what Come and Get it does. Show me even one.

I think it might help to look at it from a different perspective: how is Come and Get It to be rationalised *without* magic when it can affect opponents who shouldn't be capable of responding to a fighter taunting them from the other side of a room? If a golem is created with magical instructions to target magic-users first, for instance, how does Come and Get It override that?

Quote from: LibraryLass;683289Show me a spell that does what Come and Get it does. Show me even one.

As you wish.

QuoteTaunt
30 yd range
Instant   8 sec cooldown
Requires Warrior
Requires level 12
Taunts the target to attack you, but has no effect if the target is already attacking you.

;)

Quote from: Mistwell;683685Yeah see I never viewed the power as magical in nature, I viewed it as story-game in nature.  As in the player was taking narrative control over the monster and making them move to a specific spot, not through magic, but through some sort of fucked-up mundane taunt power that had something similar to an intimidate power involved.

I don't really do storygame, so 'taunting an ooze' can annoy me. But frankly, I have not seen all that many fighters with 'come and get it' in actual play.

Quote from: Warthur;683698I think it might help to look at it from a different perspective: how is Come and Get It to be rationalised *without* magic when it can affect opponents who shouldn't be capable of responding to a fighter taunting them from the other side of a room? If a golem is created with magical instructions to target magic-users first, for instance, how does Come and Get It override that?

How does the Golem identify a magic user?

Quote from: jadrax;683728How does the Golem identify a magic user?

Magic.

Quote from: Haffrung;683662I don't think that's true. Previous editions have been promoted as doing what you always wanted D&D to do, but in a better way. WotC is admitting that with 4E they took D&D in the wrong direction altogether.

People seem to ignore this point.

WotC designers admitted they done wrong with 4e.

They came right out and listed the faults . . . just as we had told them all along.

Anyone who likes 4e is no friend of authentic TSR D&D.

From what people say, it looks like WotC have returned to something that more closely resembles authentic D&D, which is TSR-era D&D.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;683674Justify the use of their powers? You mean play mother fucking may I? :rolleyes:

Where does this stupid notion even come from? 90% when it is applied to game or play style the apt description would be: "Mother, I fucking will and you better believe it!"

Same here.

Quote from: 1989;683773People seem to ignore this point.

WotC designers admitted they done wrong with 4e.

They came right out and listed the faults . . . just as we had told them all along.

They did this with 1e, 2e, and 3e as well.  Of course 4e had faults.  ALL the editions have faults.  Which WOTC has listed at various times.  That doesn't make it a "bad game" or a "failure" in terms of being a fun D&D game to play.  They've admitted two things, 1) it didn't make as much profit as Hasbro wanted, and 2) the game had things that could be improved on.  Those two facts are true of all prior editions of D&D.

In fact, YOU admitted 2e had faults and mistakes, in our discussion of the Player Options book.  Does that make 2e a failure, because it was losing TSR money and had faults?

QuoteAnyone who likes 4e is no friend of authentic TSR D&D.

I am a "friend of authentic TSR D&D", and you are not the gatekeeper of who is, and is not, a "friend of authentic TSR D&D".  You are, however, an obvious troll at this point.

Quote from: Mistwell;683785They did this with 1e, 2e, and 3e as well..

When did TSR admit the faults of 1e and 2e?

Quote from: robiswrong;683676I'm pretty sure that's not what he meant.  "Come up with a description for how this makes sense" is probably closer to what he meant.

Not justify in terms of asking the GM if they can use the power.

Well yeah (note the sarcasm tag).

 Sitting there trying to find a non-magical reason why a skeleton was pulled towards my fighter isn't my kind of fun. There is no way to not make it sound forced which is having the game serve the rules instead of the other way around.

Also, do keep in mind that the layoffs started about six months after 4e was released. That doesn't happen if everything is going smoothly.

You know what I hate?  For the past two years, people have pointed out that the publishing schedule around 4e looked weird. All four books getting released at once. Sudden drop-offs of books, sometimes only a couple months after they're announced.  Layoffs and internal disputes.  Losing massive sales to Pathfinder, which should have never, ever happened.  Seriously, Pathfinder should not exist.  In a sane world, Pathfinder would be getting the same sales as Castles and Crusades.  Essentials comes out and it looks like a 90 degree change in direction.

So people are noticing all this, and saying, very diplomatically, that maybe 4e went in the wrong direction. That maybe there was actual fire related to all this smoke.

But we're told that we're edition warring, that we just hate 4e, that it's all an elaborate conspiracy. You end up getting a little fucking sick of people telling you that a spade ain't a fucking spade, you dig?

Quote from: Exploderwizard;683800Well yeah (note the sarcasm tag).

 Sitting there trying to find a non-magical reason why a skeleton was pulled towards my fighter isn't my kind of fun. There is no way to not make it sound forced which is having the game serve the rules instead of the other way around.

'Describing what your character does' is kind of a basic roleplaying skill though isn't it? Come and Get It is maybe a bit more of a challenge sometimes but I've been using it since release and never had any problems.

Quote from: Mistwell;683785I am a "friend of authentic TSR D&D", and you are not the gatekeeper of who is, and is not, a "friend of authentic TSR D&D".  You are, however, an obvious troll at this point.

You shall not pass!

Quote from: soviet;683811'Describing what your character does' is kind of a basic roleplaying skill though isn't it? Come and Get It is maybe a bit more of a challenge sometimes but I've been using it since release and never had any problems.

Thats the whole game! :)  I much prefer just describing what my character does and let the rules flex and bend to accomodate the action instead of twisting my description to fit a pre-set bit of rules code with specific mechanical effects.

Quote from: jadrax;683728How does the Golem identify a magic user?

The golem uses whatever criteria its creator imbued it with to judge.

Of course, the point holds equally true if its creator told the golem to just stand there constantly and endlessly loading coal into a coal furnace, not to move from its position, and to only attack people who tried to interfere with the furnace. The power apparently lets fighters override those instructions.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;683788When did TSR admit the faults of 1e and 2e?

I'd have to go back and check Dragon magazine articles for the 1e-to-2e transition articles. I know for sure for a bit more than a year, WOTC was proclaiming how much superior 3e was to 2e during that transition.  Of course, that's not TSR - how could it be, as they had already sold to WOTC at that time.  But, it's their successor.  

For example, I picked Dragon #274, which is roughly in the middle of WOTC's proclamations of how superior 3e was to 2e (they started with slow annoucements of the new game and tidbits and articles on how much better it would be, then it came out and they continued for many months talking about see, now you can see what we've know, that it's way better than 2e).  Here's what I got from perusing the first half of that magazine:

"New and better rules aren't all the new D&D is about, of course..."
"Making the Best Better: "The guiding concept behind the new edition, " Jonathan says, " was to make it demonstrably better.  The changes had to pan out in actual play value..."
"According to Jonathan, players will be pleased to find that the game no longer focuses on what a character can or can't do, but instead on what happens when that charter tries.  "Old D&D said wizards can't wear armor," Jonathan explains. "The new edition says what happens if a wizard does.  Old D&D says that a dwarven fighter can't move silenty; new D&D spells out just how bad that fighter is at moving silently but lets him try if he wants to."  ...
"While many things stayed the same, the changes that were made were made with one particular goal in mind: to make the game fun." [Edit: I believe this is the very sort of language that sent 3e fans into apoplectic fits when 4e was being promoted.]

From the ad text in the 3e ad: PHB "The new edition of D&D is the clearest, most innovative manifestation of the game that launched an industry.  Featuring a new, more versatile rules system playtested by over 600 players worldwide.  New characters and more flexible character classes are easier than ever to create using the new CD-ROM character generator included free with every handbook.
Introductory Set "The first new edition of the Dungeons & Dragons game in ten years improves and updates the world's bestselling roleplaying game. "
On the d20 Mechanic, "That way you can see more easily how spells, feats, magic items, and other special circumstances affect your odds, allowing you to spend less time thinking about the numbers and more time playing your character."
The Playtest article very heavily bashes THAC0 and proclaims ascending AC as a superior way to do things.

That's just one half of one issue, in that roughly year long period where WOTC was promoting 3e.  They were very clearly saying 2e was flawed, 3e improves on 2e.

And I am sure TSR did the same with 1e, I just don't have easy access to those transition issues at the moment.  But I know the consensus at the time as that 2e was "fixing" 1e, by making "everyone's most common house rules" into the standard rule, and "discarding rules nobody used".  That was the common thought during that transition, and I am willing to bet it made it into the pages of Dragon at the time.

Well no fucking shit WoTC is going to say that 3e is better than 2e.  3e was their product, and 2e wasn't.

That's not exactly solid grounds to say that every edition has been admitted to be a failure.

Sure, they always see their new edition as an improvement. But I think the key difference in this instance is they are visibly backtracking from the changes 4E introduced. So it isn't the standard transition.

I don't think 4E is poorly designed but I do think it quite obviously failed as far as editions of D&D go. The fanbase really fractured around it in a way I never seen before. This is not simply building on what came before. I just don't see any other way to read all the developments, news, and statements we've seen over the last few years. 4E did exceptionally poorly as an edition of dungeons and dragons.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;683847I don't think 4E is poorly designed but I do think it quite obviously failed as far as editions of D&D go.

...

4E did exceptionally poorly as an edition of dungeons and dragons.

I don't think there's any arguing this point.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;683847Sure, they always see their new edition as an improvement. But I think the key difference in this instance is they are visibly backtracking from the changes 4E introduced. So it isn't the standard transition.

I don't think 4E is poorly designed but I do think it quite obviously failed as far as editions of D&D go. The fanbase really fractured around it in a way I never seen before. This is not simply building on what came before. I just don't see any other way to read all the developments, news, and statements we've seen over the last few years. 4E did exceptionally poorly as an edition of dungeons and dragons.

Exactly.

WotC didn't promote the build-up to 4E by saying 4E was necessary because they had lost sight of what players wanted out of D&D.

Anyone here ever see a TV commercial for a car? This year's model is always better than last year's model. Always. Even if they just changed the hubcaps.

5e is fucked, regardless of good, bad or great design. The D&D fanbase is fractured and too old to effectively lead a word of mouth campaign into the desired demographic of teens and young adults.

And regardless of 5e's good, bad or great design, by the time 2020 rolls around we will be looking at playtests for 6e.

Quote from: 1989;683773Anyone who likes 4e is no friend of authentic TSR D&D.

I wasn't aware we were only allowed to like one kind of thing. I guess I'll throw all the pasta and beans out of my pantry, because since Chinese food is my favorite I can't genuinely enjoy Italian or Mexican food anymore

Quote from: LibraryLass;683873I wasn't aware we were only allowed to like one kind of thing. I guess I'll throw all the pasta and beans out of my pantry, because since Chinese food is my favorite I can't genuinely enjoy Italian or Mexican food anymore

You'd better, or else the RPG Police will come to your house and arrest you.

Quote from: Rincewind1;683874You'd better, or else the RPG Police will come to your house and arrest you.

Ah, don't worry about them. They're mostly idiots. I just put on a fake mustache when I play.

Quote from: JonWake;683879Ah, don't worry about them. They're mostly idiots. I just put on a fake mustache when I play.

They are? The Board Games Police are pretty tough lads.

Quote from: Rincewind1;683880They are? The Board Games Police are pretty tough lads.

Oh, the Board Games Police are some right bastards. The RPG Police are as passive as Ghandi's diaper.

Quote from: JonWake;683890Oh, the Board Games Police are some right bastards. The RPG Police are as passive as Ghandi's diaper.

Passive?  Have you ever EATEN curry?

Quote from: robiswrong;683891Passive?  Have you ever EATEN curry?

Ghandi ate curry? I thought he hated the British.


(ohohohoho)

Quote from: 1989;683773People seem to ignore this point.

WotC designers admitted they done wrong with 4e.

They came right out and listed the faults . . . just as we had told them all along.

Anyone who likes 4e is no friend of authentic TSR D&D.

From what people say, it looks like WotC have returned to something that more closely resembles authentic D&D, which is TSR-era D&D.

"Anyone who likes 4e is no friend of authentic TSR D&D."

I don't get this statement at all :)


Do you mean liking 4E diverts resources from wotc that could be spent on a better version than 4E?

I assume you don't mean a person cannot like more than one version of dnd.

Quote from: robiswrong;683632Some of it's supposed to be your ability to provoke and piss off your opponent so they're not thinking rationally - I've seen people do *very* stupid things when pissed off, and done some *very* stupid things when pissed off.  And if you think people think rationally and coolly when in the middle of anything resembling a fight, then you probably haven't been in one.

But, yeah, there are times when it (and the general 4e policy of 'powers *work*, but the justification may be different') stretch believability.  So if you're going to play 4e, you just have to kind of come to terms with the fact that there are things in it that don't make total sense if you deconstruct them, accept it, and get on with the game because you like the other things it does well enough.

For me, that's no different than hp in any version of D&D, or lots of other things that are embedded into the game.  They work well enough in most cases, and in most cases you can come up with some kind of justification (even if it's not always the same one), but there are some edges that are just insane.  So if I'm playing D&D (any edition), I just shrug my shoulders, turn my suspension of disbelief to eleven, and get on with the things in the game that make it fun.

I may have an easier time with it, ironically, from my years playing GURPS.  I'm so used to a more realistic injury/damage/etc. system that I have to crank my suspension of disbelief up to get past hp, and so some of the illogical bits in 4e don't bug me as much.  If I was primarily a D&D player all along, and had really well internalized hp to the point where I *didn't* notice them, I could see the *new* illogical bits in 4e (as opposed to the old illogical bits from 3.x and before) seriously bugging me.

I don't think that "Come and Get It" is really the problem people have with 4e.  I think if they liked the game as a whole, they could get over it.  I think it's mainly that 4e is a different game that targets and satisfies different 'needs', and de-emphasizes some of the needs that 3.x satisfied very, very well.

Since one would assume that after close to ten years of 3.x, there would have been some self-selection in the playerbase for people *with* those needs, it's easy to see where there'd be a disconnect and disgust from 3.x fans going to 4e.

The fact that they smacked into the uncanny valley with the game mechanics (things are 'kinda like' earlier D&D, but different - see:  Saving Throws), it's not surprising to me at all that the game got such a visceral reaction.  Again, the uncanny valley effect probably hit me less because most of my gaming history *wasn't* D&D.

I agree.

When you knock a Beholder prone, it's easy to explain that as 'jarring the beholder'

It's funny that some people can't handle that but don't mind abstract hp.

Quote from: Bill;684018I agree.

When you knock a Beholder prone, it's easy to explain that as 'jarring the beholder'

It's funny that some people can't handle that but don't mind abstract hp.

Hell, even if you don't I think the idea of bitchslapping a beholder so hard it goes spinning face-first into the dirt like a big angry volleyball is the funniest thing I've imagined all day.

Quote from: Bill;684018I agree.

When you knock a Beholder prone, it's easy to explain that as 'jarring the beholder'

It's funny that some people can't handle that but don't mind abstract hp.

I believe what folks are saying, and certainly how I feel myself, is that I don't like and shouldn't have to constantly rationalize the game world to justify the rules.

It's exactly backwards to how I enjoy games, "world first", not that I "can't handle" something.

I just don't find it fun. And further find it corrosive to the things I do enjoy.

Quote from: Piestrio;684044I believe what folks are saying, and certainly how I feel myself, is that I don't like and shouldn't have to constantly rationalize the game world to justify the rules.

It's exactly backwards to how I enjoy games, "world first", not that I "can't handle" something.

I just don't find it fun. And further find it corrosive to the things I do enjoy.

I respect your right to not enjoy 4E.

There are plenty of games I do not enjoy, or at least do not enjoy gming.

I don't see rationalizing rules as anything new though.
I do that with the absurdity of HP all the time, and its no big deal.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;683846Well no fucking shit WoTC is going to say that 3e is better than 2e.  3e was their product, and 2e wasn't.

Yes, it was.  They owned it.  They STILL own it, and just re-released it.  What, you thought Lorraine Williams had more respect for the rules her company owned, and the players who played them, than Peter Adkison?

Naw, try again.

QuoteThat's not exactly solid grounds to say that every edition has been admitted to be a failure.

It was as blatant an admission that 2e was a "failure" than anything we're reading now about 4e from WOTC.  I mean fuck dude, one of those quotes said that 2e WASN'T FUN TO PLAY, and 3e would be fun to play.  That sure sounds to me like they're saying that 2e failed.  And again, that's just one-half of one issue of Dragon in the midst of about 12 issues that had this sort of stuff in it.

But what I really hate about the disingenuous of your approach here, Sacrosanct, is your demand for proof with NO INTENTION TO ACCEPT ANYTHING PROFFERED IN RESPONSE.  You asked something that required reading through old magazines just to respond, and then dismissed it out of hand without any thought, even though it said the very things you claimed had never been said.  And, if I did it again - if I found you quotes about 1e, you'd likely do the same thing.  This isn't a debate between peers in your mind - it seems to you, this is simply a forum to tell others what you think, and then just sit back and repeat what you think and dismiss whatever replies you get that disagree with you.

Now maybe that's fun for you.  But, not for me.  And, not for most people, I suspect.  It's not an honest discussion.  So, let me know when you're ready for one of those.

Quote from: LibraryLass;684037bitchslapping a beholder

Interesting turn of phrase for someone who gave me a hard time in the ConTessa thread for using the C word.

http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=664328&postcount=125

I think Mistwell is a closet 4venger.

I feel the burning flames of righteousness in his defense of 4e.

I've been reading a lot of 80s Marvel comics lately so I'm seeing a lot of TSR adverts. The ads for the 2e PHB all say as their headline 'Your toughest opponent shouldn't be the rulebook'. Which to me clearly implies that in 1e the rulebook sometimes was your toughest opponent and had a bunch of problems that 2e would now be fixing.

I assume this is the one you mean:

"Your Toughest Opponent Shouldn't Be the Rulebook."

Text: "We think that it's time the rules books were on your side. Introducing ADVANCED DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS ™ 2nd Edition game system, the revised, player-friendly edition of the world's most popular role-playing game. After 15,000 letters, years of research, and many hours of playtesting, the game system you've been waiting for is here. We've revised our handbooks to be more concise and better indexed. Awkward mechanics have been cleaned up, and rule changes have been made to improve play. Revised tables, charts, and graphs make for a smoother game, and powerful new graphics created vivid images for campaign play. In short, the best just got better. But fear not. AD&D 2nd Edition is intended to improve your game. All AD&D 2nd Edition products are compatible with existing AD&D products. So arm yourself with AD&D 2nd Edition Player's Handbook. With all that's in store for you on your journey, the last thing you need is another opponent."

Quote from: Mistwell;684180It was as blatant an admission that 2e was a "failure" than anything we're reading now about 4e from WOTC.  

Dude, 3e was released 11 years after 2e. You might have a point if TSR turned around in 1991 and released a substantially repackaged version of the 2e core game, and then scrapped it altogether in 1992.

WotC fundamentally re-worked and re-packaged 4e two years after it was released, let it die one year after that, and then the following year came out and admitted they lost sight of what most D&D fans want. It's not the same old.

That doesn't mean WotC believes they made a terrible game. It means WotC believes they made the wrong game, which alienated a big chunk of its customer base and failed to get enough traction with new players to make up the losses.

Quote from: jadrax;684193I assume this is the one you mean:

"Your Toughest Opponent Shouldn't Be the Rulebook."

Text: "We think that it's time the rules books were on your side. Introducing ADVANCED DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS ™ 2nd Edition game system, the revised, player-friendly edition of the world's most popular role-playing game. After 15,000 letters, years of research, and many hours of playtesting, the game system you've been waiting for is here. We've revised our handbooks to be more concise and better indexed. Awkward mechanics have been cleaned up, and rule changes have been made to improve play. Revised tables, charts, and graphs make for a smoother game, and powerful new graphics created vivid images for campaign play. In short, the best just got better. But fear not. AD&D 2nd Edition is intended to improve your game. All AD&D 2nd Edition products are compatible with existing AD&D products. So arm yourself with AD&D 2nd Edition Player's Handbook. With all that's in store for you on your journey, the last thing you need is another opponent."

That's pretty much the same as saying they lost sight of what D&D fans really wanted. Right? Isn't it? Guys?

Quote from: 1989;684186I think Mistwell is a closet 4venger.

I feel the burning flames of righteousness in his defense of 4e.

You're just figuring this out now?

Quote from: Haffrung;684202That's pretty much the same as saying they lost sight of what D&D fans really wanted. Right? Isn't it? Guys?

The cognitive dissonance that must be required to claim that makes my head hurt.

Quote from: soviet;684187I've been reading a lot of 80s Marvel comics lately so I'm seeing a lot of TSR adverts. The ads for the 2e PHB all say as their headline 'Your toughest opponent shouldn't be the rulebook'. Which to me clearly implies that in 1e the rulebook sometimes was your toughest opponent and had a bunch of problems that 2e would now be fixing.

That was about organization. 2E tried to organize things more clearly. I don't see these as similar situations at all (1E was enormously popular, and 2E was trying to continue and grow that success). 2E is virtually the same game mechanically as 1E.

Quote from: Mistwell;684180Yes, it was.  They owned it.  They STILL own it, and just re-released it.  What, you thought Lorraine Williams had more respect for the rules her company owned, and the players who played them, than Peter Adkison?

Naw, try again.



It was as blatant an admission that 2e was a "failure" than anything we're reading now about 4e from WOTC.  I mean fuck dude, one of those quotes said that 2e WASN'T FUN TO PLAY, and 3e would be fun to play.  That sure sounds to me like they're saying that 2e failed.  And again, that's just one-half of one issue of Dragon in the midst of about 12 issues that had this sort of stuff in it.

But what I really hate about the disingenuous of your approach here, Sacrosanct, is your demand for proof with NO INTENTION TO ACCEPT ANYTHING PROFFERED IN RESPONSE.  You asked something that required reading through old magazines just to respond, and then dismissed it out of hand without any thought, even though it said the very things you claimed had never been said.  And, if I did it again - if I found you quotes about 1e, you'd likely do the same thing.  This isn't a debate between peers in your mind - it seems to you, this is simply a forum to tell others what you think, and then just sit back and repeat what you think and dismiss whatever replies you get that disagree with you.

Now maybe that's fun for you.  But, not for me.  And, not for most people, I suspect.  It's not an honest discussion.  So, let me know when you're ready for one of those.

If you can't see the difference between a new company saying their version is better than the old companies', and the same people who worked on a version saying the previous one was wrong, then I can't help you.  That's a clear distinction.  You claimed it was true of every edition that it was admitted the previous one failed.  

That's not true.  Unless you can show me where the TSR folks admitted that 2e failed.  You havn't done that.  All you've done is show how WotC said their version is better.  Those don't mean the same thing.

so before you go around accusing other people of being dishonest, take a big long look in the mirror

Quote from: jadrax;684193. But fear not. AD&D 2nd Edition is intended to improve your game. All AD&D 2nd Edition products are compatible with existing AD&D products. So arm yourself with AD&D 2nd Edition Player's Handbook. With all that's in store for you on your journey, the last thing you need is another opponent."

This was the crucial point. I remember buying 1E and 2E products and mixing them freely. 2E was not a rejection of 1E (which was the edition during the boom in D&Ds popularity in the early 80s). Their marketing was all about cleaning up the corners and making the thing easier to navigate.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;684207This was the crucial point. I remember buying 1E and 2E products and mixing them freely. 2E was not a rejection of 1E (which was the edition during the boom in D&Ds popularity in the early 80s). Their marketing was all about cleaning up the corners and making the thing easier to navigate.

Kim Moran recently did a podcast where he said, "It amazes me that people think we never thought of ascendnig AC back then.  Of couse we did.  But it was key to us that 2e be compatible with 1e, so we just streamlined the attack matrix into THAC0."

Quote from: Bobloblah;684204The cognitive dissonance that must be required to claim that makes my head hurt.

I didn't say that it did. Also, you don't understand what cognitive dissonance means.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;6842052E is virtually the same game mechanically as 1E.

IIRC, it got rid of most of the "elder game stuff".

Also, it was almost the same game at the beginning of its run, but the addition of kits and whatnot changed the game towards the end of the run.

I see 2E as the real point of turning from "survival horror/fantasy Vietnam" to "fantasy heroes".  It's not the *end* of that road, but it seems like the place where the switch in direction happened.

To my mind the big change with the strategy around 4e was when Mike Mearls took over. Mearls was not IIRC one of the lead designers of 4e (although he seemed to get a lot of the blame for it until DDN started). It was when he took over that the abortion called Essentials came out, the errata train went into overdrive, and official support for 4e generally became shitty. It's clear that he didn't like or possibly understand 4e even before DDN was on the horizon, although granted that might have been why he was brought in in the first place.  The fact that he's dismissing it now shouldn't be a big surprise to anyone. I'd be interested to see what the original lead designers think of 4e now though.

Quote from: soviet;684212To my mind the big change with the strategy around 4e was when Mike Mearls took over. Mearls was not IIRC one of the lead designers of 4e (although he seemed to get a lot of the blame for it until DDN started). It was when he took over that the abortion called Essentials came out, the errata train went into overdrive, and official support for 4e generally became shitty. It's clear that he didn't like or possibly understand 4e even before DDN was on the horizon, although granted that might have been why he was brought in in the first place.  The fact that he's dismissing it now shouldn't be a big surprise to anyone. I'd be interested to see what the original lead designers think of 4e now though.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but are not all of the lead designers for 4e gone now. Maybe they can comment now that they are not under the umbrella of D&D. Note: Didn't one of them move to Magic or something?

Quote from: 1989;684186I think Mistwell is a closet 4venger.

I feel the burning flames of righteousness in his defense of 4e.

Nah, it's just the joy of white knighting. Twee virginal special snowflake harkens for a hero, and lo shall he appear. The discarded crusts of sandwiches have an advocate to clamor for their virtue as croutons. And for that we should be thankful, for it is entertaining.

Quote from: JasperAK;684216Correct me if I'm wrong, but are not all of the lead designers for 4e gone now. Maybe they can comment now that they are not under the umbrella of D&D. Note: Didn't one of them move to Magic or something?

Well I have seen their 'love letter' has been published already. ;)

Quote from: 1989;684186I think Mistwell is a closet 4venger.

I feel the burning flames of righteousness in his defense of 4e.

Fortunately even fewer people care what you think, than care what I think.  And that's saying something, since the number of people who care what I think is pretty damn low!

Quote from: soviet;684187I've been reading a lot of 80s Marvel comics lately so I'm seeing a lot of TSR adverts. The ads for the 2e PHB all say as their headline 'Your toughest opponent shouldn't be the rulebook'. Which to me clearly implies that in 1e the rulebook sometimes was your toughest opponent and had a bunch of problems that 2e would now be fixing.

(http://i163.photobucket.com/albums/t306/shakesville/adndwwv2no31jun89.jpg)

Quote from: Haffrung;684201Dude, 3e was released 11 years after 2e. You might have a point if TSR turned around in 1991 and released a substantially repackaged version of the 2e core game, and then scrapped it altogether in 1992.

Now you're moving the ball.

The claim was things WOTC *SAID* demonstrated 4e was a failure.

So I addressed that claim that was made.

And in response, you shifted to a time frame that is not something WOTC said.

I am sure if I responded to that, you'd shift to some other factor other than things they said and the time frame?

How about we address the issue raised first, maybe?

Quote from: Sacrosanct;684206If you can't see the difference between a new company saying their version is better than the old companies',

No, that's not what happened.  When you phrase it like that, you imply there was some sort of competition there.  There was not.  The old companies game BELONGED TO THE NEW COMPANY.  It was their game, and the same employees moving over to the new company for the most part! So no, there is fuckall difference there, for this sort of issue.

Quoteand the same people who worked on a version saying the previous one was wrong, then I can't help you.  That's a clear distinction.  You claimed it was true of every edition that it was admitted the previous one failed.  

And it is.  And yes, some people who worked on 2e were the very ones making 3e and crapping on 2e.  In fact, Monte Cook worked on both, and bashed 2e plenty.  Are you saying the name on the door of the company, it's location in the nation, and the guy who was the head of the company, are relevant to that?

QuoteThat's not true.  Unless you can show me where the TSR folks admitted that 2e failed.  You havn't done that.  All you've done is show how WotC said their version is better.  Those don't mean the same thing.

[

Why would it matter, IN ANY WAY, who the President of the company was, and the name they used for the company? Lorianne Williams hated all of it.  WOTC and Peter bought all of it.  It was Peter and WOTC's game they were bashing with those comments.  Can you tell me how it matters which name was on the door for this subject, and why Lorriane being in control rather than Peter is relevant to this discussion?  It's like you forgot to actually make your argument, and assumed there is something inherently special about the later-days TSR company vs. the early-days WOTC company that took over TSR.  For the most part, it was the same fucking people, with the same products! And one of the biggest differences (Peter vs. Lorriane) doesn't help your point (and actually might hurt it).

Quoteso before you go around accusing other people of being dishonest, take a big long look in the mirror

Oh I am looking alright.  You've built this incredibly bullshit standard that the name on the door of the company and who was the President is relevant to this, and then asked that people run off and do research to try and refute what you say and then you automatically dismiss it when they call your bluff.  Yeah, looking at you, calling you dishonest.  Engage the debate, or don't.  But stop pretending it's anyone other than you spewing bullshit here.

Quote from: Mistwell;684224No, that's not what happened.  When you phrase it like that, you imply there was some sort of competition there.  There was not.  The old companies game BELONGED TO THE NEW COMPANY.  It was their game, and the same employees moving over to the new company for the most part! So no, there is fuckall difference there, for this sort of issue.



And it is.  And yes, some people who worked on 2e were the very ones making 3e and crapping on 2e.  In fact, Monte Cook worked on both, and bashed 2e plenty.  Are you saying the name on the door of the company, it's location in the nation, and the guy who was the head of the company, are relevant to that?

[

Why would it matter, IN ANY WAY, who the President of the company was, and the name they used for the company? Lorianne Williams hated all of it.  WOTC and Peter bought all of it.  It was Peter and WOTC's game they were bashing with those comments.  Can you tell me how it matters which name was on the door for this subject, and why Lorriane being in control rather than Peter is relevant to this discussion?  It's like you forgot to actually make your argument, and assumed there is something inherently special about the later-days TSR company vs. the early-days WOTC company that took over TSR.  For the most part, it was the same fucking people, with the same products! And one of the biggest differences (Peter vs. Lorriane) doesn't help your point (and actually might hurt it).



Oh I am looking alright.  You've built this incredibly bullshit standard that the name on the door of the company and who was the President is relevant to this, and then asked that people run off and do research to try and refute what you say and then you automatically dismiss it when they call your bluff.  Yeah, looking at you, calling you dishonest.  Engage the debate, or don't.  But stop pretending it's anyone other than you spewing bullshit here.

Its always fun when I get to use an Arnold quote in a meaningful way so here it is:

Relax, you'll live longer.:D

So did Cook and Williams say that 2e was a failure?  Where did they say that?

He did say this (http://www.montecookgames.com/putting-the-play-in-roleplaying/), a few days ago:

QuoteAs someone deeply involved in the 2E to 3E switch, I can tell you that we tried to keep the play focus (although we never used that term).

Seems odd that someone who viewed 2e as a failure would try to keep the 2e focus as part of 3e.

See, you are trying to act like a brand new company, taking over the IP of another company that failed (not becasue of 2e, but because of bad business management), saying that their "new product is a lot better than the old one" is equivilant to admitting 2e failed.

It isn't.  It's pretty standard business practice to do that, in fact.

just imagine all the people who are waiting to be convinced that the D&D 1e-> 2e change was the same as the 2e-> 3e change which was the same as the 3e-> 4e change, despite their wildly divergent contexts and completely different, easily observable effects

also they give a shit and also it is the year 2013

Quote from: soviet;684212To my mind the big change with the strategy around 4e was when Mike Mearls took over. Mearls was not IIRC one of the lead designers of 4e (although he seemed to get a lot of the blame for it until DDN started). It was when he took over that the abortion called Essentials came out, the errata train went into overdrive, and official support for 4e generally became shitty. It's clear that he didn't like or possibly understand 4e even before DDN was on the horizon, although granted that might have been why he was brought in in the first place.  The fact that he's dismissing it now shouldn't be a big surprise to anyone. I'd be interested to see what the original lead designers think of 4e now though.

It is always going to be tough to balance the marketing of a new edition (tell me why I should buy new books?) with being respectful for past editions.  Obviously there are going to be comments that focus on the flaws of the previous edition, even if it does have many bright points.  

I am not sure that this is avoidable.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;684227Seems odd that someone who viewed 2e as a failure would try to keep the 2e focus as part of 3e.

I'm not sure how you're reading that.  The article was about focusing on in-game, at-table decisions rather than char-op type decisions.  I don't think it's a statement of overall agenda in the design.

I'm not trying to say that Monte's claiming that 2e was great, or that 2e was terrible, but maintaining *one aspect* of the game doesn't really seem like it's an endorsement of the product as a whole.

Quote from: One Horse Town;684185Interesting turn of phrase for someone who gave me a hard time in the ConTessa thread for using the C word.

http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=664328&postcount=125

I didn't give you a hard time, did I? I just thought that it was an inadvertently loaded choice of words that might be worth considering whether to edit it to something that wouldn't be taken the wrong way in the context of the thread.

Quote from: soviet;684210I didn't say that it did. Also, you don't understand what cognitive dissonance means.

Perhaps you're just a little bit hard of comprehension, or perhaps you're just really stupid - I neither know nor care - either way, Haffrung was responding to Mistwell's contention, which is what I also responded to (that'd be why I quoted that post, if that helps).

As for cognitive dissonance, it's on display more or less every time a 4venger tries to claim that this edition change is just like all the others, becoming ever more strident and shrill as more and more evidence piles up, refuting that notion.

Quote from: Bobloblah;684264Perhaps you're just a little bit hard of comprehension, or perhaps you're just really stupid - I neither know nor care - either way, Haffrung was responding to Mistwell's contention, which is what I also responded to (that'd be why I quoted that post, if that helps).

As for cognitive dissonance, it's on display more or less every time a 4venger tries to claim that this edition change is just like all the others, becoming ever more strident and shrill as more and more evidence piles up, refuting that notion.

Yeah, fuck you too. You got caught in a lie and you still don't understand what cognitive dissonance means.

Quote from: Mistwell;684219Fortunately even fewer people care what you think, than care what I think.  And that's saying something, since the number of people who care what I think is pretty damn low!

What a thing to be fighting over...

Quote from: Sacrosanct;684227So did Cook and Williams say that 2e was a failure?  Where did they say that?

He did say this (http://www.montecookgames.com/putting-the-play-in-roleplaying/), a few days ago:



Seems odd that someone who viewed 2e as a failure would try to keep the 2e focus as part of 3e.

See, you are trying to act like a brand new company, taking over the IP of another company that failed (not becasue of 2e, but because of bad business management), saying that their "new product is a lot better than the old one" is equivilant to admitting 2e failed.

It isn't.  It's pretty standard business practice to do that, in fact.

Look, I responded to you.  You didn't really respond back.  You just ignore the bulk of my response, repeated your claim, and moved on to a new issue and a single point.  Can you see why it'd be frustrating to continue at this point, given the disparity here? You want me now to go back to issues 142 through 172 of Dragon, figure out when TSR bashed 1e, quote it to you some more.  But, we both know you will view it only with an eye to pick it apart and find something to dismiss.  We're not having a debate here, all you're doing is explaining why you don't need to reconsider your perspective.

Quote from: soviet;684508Yeah, fuck you too.

That's the best you've got? Really?

Quote from: soviet;684508You got caught in a lie and you still don't understand what cognitive dissonance means.

And what lie, pray tell, was that?

You know, any claim of lack of understanding coming from you is pretty rich, considering some of the idiocy you post whenever 4E (or narrative versus trad RPGs) comes up. Didn't you spout off about, "4E was 3E done right!" or something similar? Sure. All while a massive chunk of the customer base peeled off to chase a clone of the previous edition. Watching you flailing about, trying to convince yourself that 4E was fantastic edition (in spite of the publisher dumping it record time) is pretty entertaining...

Quote from: Mistwell;684667We're not having a debate here, all you're doing is explaining why you don't need to reconsider your perspective.

I'd say you're doing the same. It's painfully clear that the current edition change is without precedent, and that's backed up by the publisher's own words, both in quantitative and qualitative terms.

That doesn't mean 4e didn't sell, that doesn't mean you shouldn't like 4e, that doesn't even mean it's a bad game. What it does mean is that it was not a terribly successful iteration of the D&D franchise in the eyes of its publisher (in the terms that matter to them; spare me the argument that it's just big, bad Hasborg's fault, as TSR would've been apoplectic at the current state of affairs). And that's something that an awful lot of people have been both predicting since its release, and observing for the past couple years. The denials of these things have gone from amused, to strident, to shrill over the past two years or so. And at this point they just look like the denier has lost touch with reality.

Quote from: Opaopajr;684217The discarded crusts of sandwiches have an advocate to clamor for their virtue as croutons.

:rotfl:

Quote from: Opaopajr;684217And for that we should be thankful, for it is entertaining.

There's that.

Its not very comparable, the move to 3e vs. the move to 4e.  At the time of the move to 3e there was a lot of talk of the system being better, yes, but keep in mind 2e was, by that time, a failure.  People had abandoned it in droves, it had its own "hail mary" pass of rules that only muddled things further (just like essentials), and it was generally a very disliked system.

On the other hand, at the time of the shift to 4e, 3.x was (however flawed) still a very beloved system (as was D20).  So the PR work for it was all wrong. Saying "the old game sucked and needed to be fixed" was something that met with wide agreement with the 2e-3e transition, while with 4e saying the same thing felt like a slap in the face.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;685505Its not very comparable, the move to 3e vs. the move to 4e.  At the time of the move to 3e there was a lot of talk of the system being better, yes, but keep in mind 2e was, by that time, a failure.  People had abandoned it in droves, it had its own "hail mary" pass of rules that only muddled things further (just like essentials), and it was generally a very disliked system.


RPGPundit

TSR failed not because of 2e, but because of horrible business decisions around other products.

Also, that doesn't make a lot of sense about a "hail mary" driving people away further.  2.5 is a clear precursor to 3e, and you see a lot of 3e's mechanics in 2.5.  Also the same people who did 2.5 wrote 3e.  So how can 3e be a beloved system while 2.5 was a last gasp failure?

Quote from: RPGPundit;685505but keep in mind 2e was, by that time, a failure.  People had abandoned it in droves, it had its own "hail mary" pass of rules that only muddled things further (just like essentials), and it was generally a very disliked system.

Holy shit, Pundit and I agree twice in a span of roughly a week.

We're doomed.

Quote from: RPGPundit;685505Its not very comparable, the move to 3e vs. the move to 4e.  At the time of the move to 3e there was a lot of talk of the system being better, yes, but keep in mind 2e was, by that time, a failure.  People had abandoned it in droves, it had its own "hail mary" pass of rules that only muddled things further (just like essentials), and it was generally a very disliked system.

RPGPundit

So what were they playing instead? Remember, a lot of people who play D&D never play another game, and have no interest in playing another game. When they stop playing D&D they stop playing RPGs.

By the middle of the 2E era the D&D and RPG wave had crested. That huge cohort of players who had started playing as adolescents in the early 80s had grown up and most had left RPGs behind. That had nothing to do with 2E and everything to do with demographics. Just as the timing and initial success of 3E had a lot to do with demographics.

2e's rep was pretty damaged by the time WotC took over.  On the one hand they were losing market share to Magic the Gathering and White Wolf (whose fans made it a hobby to mock TSR), on the other TSR's management was in financial free fall. It might have weathered the first if it weren't for the second, and vice versa. Together, it was doomed, and no new rules or updates would have helped one way or the other.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;685512TSR failed not because of 2e, but because of horrible business decisions around other products.

Also, that doesn't make a lot of sense about a "hail mary" driving people away further.  2.5 is a clear precursor to 3e, and you see a lot of 3e's mechanics in 2.5.  Also the same people who did 2.5 wrote 3e.  So how can 3e be a beloved system while 2.5 was a last gasp failure?

That's actually right. 2e itself wasn't really a "failure". TSR failed because of stupid shit, unrelated to the core of the game. For example, they suffered a financial loss on those boxed sets. And they got infinitely screwed in the book trade (novels), with tons of returns. Oh, and how about Dragon Dice? This game did well at first, but due to horrible business decisions (as you mentioned) TSR suffered a very significant financial loss on that.

And then there was Lorraine Williams who ran a gaming company (TSR), but whom loathed gamers, considering them her intellectual and social inferiors. It's a miracle that 2e lasted as long as it did, considering that it's pretty damn hard to create games without being an actual gamer. From what I've read, her arrogance and idiocy drastically increased the company's debt. That's never a good thing.

Let's also not forget that this was the time of Magic the Gathering, which made a CCG into a real competitor for RPGs. And of course, Vampire the Masquerade......which lured a rather different crowd into RPGs..

But yes, horrible business decisions caused the near-destruction of that company....

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;685571And then there was Lorraine Williams who ran a gaming company (TSR), but whom loathed gamers, considering them her intellectual and social inferiors. It's a miracle that 2e lasted as long as it did, considering that it's pretty damn hard to create games without being an actual gamer. From what I've read, her arrogance and idiocy drastically increased the company's debt. That's never a good thing.

I'd not be so sure about her idiocy playing the part here. Considering her investment in Buck Rogers games as they'd ensure her personal profit, I'd rather suspect something more foul and casual at play here. TSR at the time fits perfectly the bill for a company that you'd ride  into the ground, while collecting as much paycheck/premiums/siphoning as possible. A profitable company with decent credit rating, actually producing something, that was, at the same time, away from most of the public's eye.

Quote from: Rincewind1;685581I'd not be so sure about her idiocy playing the part here. Considering her investment in Buck Rogers games as they'd ensure her personal profit, I'd rather suspect something more foul and casual at play here. TSR at the time fits perfectly the bill for a company that you'd ride  into the ground, while collecting as much paycheck/premiums/siphoning as possible. A profitable company with decent credit rating, actually producing something, that was, at the same time, away from most of the public's eye.

Given her general opinion of gaming and RPGs, this isn't too unreasonable an assumption.  Everything she did was for her own personal profit, kind of like the Dotts with Avalon Hill.

Quote from: Haffrung;685553So what were they playing instead? Remember, a lot of people who play D&D never play another game, and have no interest in playing another game. When they stop playing D&D they stop playing RPGs.

By the middle of the 2E era the D&D and RPG wave had crested. That huge cohort of players who had started playing as adolescents in the early 80s had grown up and most had left RPGs behind. That had nothing to do with 2E and everything to do with demographics. Just as the timing and initial success of 3E had a lot to do with demographics.

Quote from: JonWake;6855542e's rep was pretty damaged by the time WotC took over.  On the one hand they were losing market share to Magic the Gathering and White Wolf (whose fans made it a hobby to mock TSR), on the other TSR's management was in financial free fall. It might have weathered the first if it weren't for the second, and vice versa. Together, it was doomed, and no new rules or updates would have helped one way or the other.

Both of these are also very true.  I know this is anecdotal, but I was in the military in the 90s, and when Magic took over, it took over like gangbusters.  Not because people disliked 2e or anything, but because magic was a lot more portable and easy to carry with you.   Something important to the military, which has a ton of gamers.

And this drop off wasn't just D&D either.  RIFTS and Paladium games also became scarce.  I personally never saw a big rise in Vampire, but I admit it's probably due to the reason I mentioned earlier regarding portability.  Seeing as how the 90s brought the whole Goth phase in, it wouldn't surprise me to see that be one of the only RPGs to start taking off.

My impression is that Vampire grew with a different demographic than D&D. It wasn't as though people hated the system in D&D and then decided to play Vampire instead. I'm from that huge boom cohort of D&D players and I didn't meet anyone who played Vampire until a guy I worked with a few years ago admitted he used to play. And he was six years younger than me.

The broader point is that there isn't a fixed group of people who play D&D and go from one edition to another (or not) as suits their system preferences. People are leaving and joining the hobby all the time, with D&D typically their entry point. Most new players will play whatever edition is most recent.

Where WotC went wrong with 4E wasn't only in alienating a lot of existing players, but in not attracting enough new gamers. If they really had been able to tap into the WoW fanbase the way they had hoped, we wouldn't be having this conversation. But, unsurprisingly to a lot of us, WoW players proved uninterested in a table-top tactical skirmish game, and 4E proved less accessible to completely new gamers than WotC expected. It's not an especially difficult game by the standards of veteran 3.x or Pathfinder players. However, WotC has finally come to its senses that those aren't the standards it should be using when designing a new edition meant to grow the game (hence the comments about listening too much to what existing customers wanted for the last 10 years instead of what potential customers needed).

Mearls keeps hammering home the point that there are more people out there familiar or curious about D&D, who aren't actually playing, than there are people playing the game. Getting those people into the game is the point of Next, not just uniting fans of AD&D, 3.x, and Pathfinder.

I was in highshool in the early 90s and at the time we definitely lost regular D&D players to vampire (and then magic the gathering).

Something to not forget is the culpability of distributors during the initial explosion of CCGs on to the market. Many times, since they could make more dollars per pound with CCGs, distributors would ship cases of Magic the Gathering instead of RPG books that were expected. Anecdotes from former GDW staff during that period say that this was a significant factor in ending their business since customers were told that books which should have been shipped to FLGS were not because they had not been made and sent to the distributor. Without the Internet, most gamers had little access to news from publishers and thought that some had gone out of business long before it actually happened.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;685512TSR failed not because of 2e, but because of horrible business decisions around other products.

Also, that doesn't make a lot of sense about a "hail mary" driving people away further.  2.5 is a clear precursor to 3e, and you see a lot of 3e's mechanics in 2.5.  Also the same people who did 2.5 wrote 3e.  So how can 3e be a beloved system while 2.5 was a last gasp failure?

I was actually referring to "skills and powers".

Quote from: RPGPundit;685976I was actually referring to "skills and powers".

So was I.  S&P and C&T came out roughly together.  3e was clearly based off of C&T, almost exactly as the core combat system.  S&P was also the influence on 3e from the character customization standpoint.  Skip Williams wrote both 2.5 and 3e.

That's why I find it odd that you're saying so many people would hate 2.5, but then fall in love with 3e.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;686050So was I.  S&P and C&T came out roughly together.  3e was clearly based off of C&T, almost exactly as the core combat system.  S&P was also the influence on 3e from the character customization standpoint.  Skip Williams wrote both 2.5 and 3e.

That's why I find it odd that you're saying so many people would hate 2.5, but then fall in love with 3e.

Player's Option was a lot more complicated, and modular in what you could include.  The DM picks some things, the players pick others. That could lead to some serious issues, mainly just silly complications.

That's why we didn't like 2.5.

3e is more codified as to what mechanics were presented and used as standard.  My group loves 2.0 and 3.0, but dislikes 2.5 and 3.5.  Both of those are for essentially the same reasons.

YMMV.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;686050So was I.  S&P and C&T came out roughly together.  3e was clearly based off of C&T, almost exactly as the core combat system.  S&P was also the influence on 3e from the character customization standpoint.  Skip Williams wrote both 2.5 and 3e.

That's why I find it odd that you're saying so many people would hate 2.5, but then fall in love with 3e.

Skills and Powers was okay for me.

Combat and Tactics was disgusting. All those pictures of miniatures and squares. Yuck.

Oddly, I liked C&T better than S&P - more modular and much more easily used together with older 2e material like "[Class]'s Handbook" books! I loved the changes to weapons and armor, that kinda stuff (for one thing it meant everyone wasn't using longswords, for a change!). The miniatures kinda stuff we didn't use. But the combat maneuver rules were better than the ones in Fighter's Handbook imo.

Quote from: 1989;686109Skills and Powers was okay for me.

Combat and Tactics was disgusting. All those pictures of miniatures and squares. Yuck.

I agree. I am fine with the oft maligned S&P because I keep it as GM Option, not leave it unsupervised in the hands of players. CP is quite debatable, but I've yet to find a point-buy system with adv/disadv that was so well balanced that did not require oversight.

However I HATED C&T. Stalled out games to a crawl. Decided to give 3.x/PF a fair shake because maybe they cleaned things up for gridded combat. It most decisively did not. I cannot stand that book; I can't bring myself to buy it for completion sake at all.

S&P was a great idea incredibly badly implemented.
Encouraging DMs to tailor classes to suit their own settings and providing those classes with enough options to allow different flavours to be viable is a great plan. Giving players free rein to min max the crap out of everything was never going to be viable as a long term plan so long as you wanted to go on selling game books and the actual balance in teh S&P book was atrocious.

MTG wiped the table with RPGs because at its core its a totally awesome and incredibly well constructed game. And one that requires little prep time and no referee.
Whatever the OSR may think a GM as well as being an enabler for RPGs is also a brake because most kids are lazy, and want to be participants in adventure rather than creators of settings etc. With Magic you had a game that had a lot of the trappings of D&D and other fantasy but with an easy entry point, fast game play, no ref, can be played with 2 players not 4 etc etc. You can go to a game store crack open your magic cards and play a few games with a complete stranger for an hour then leave D&D could never do that. Combine that with the geeks affinity to collect and it was always bound to be huge, just how huge it was to come suprised everyone.

WW's growth was more about the popularity of Anne Rice than the decay of 2e. Mind's Eye Theatre called on a totally different demographic than D&D ever had and it was these gothy drama kids (who included a few girls shock horror) who lifted WW from just another RPG like RIFTS, or runequest, or Traveller and gave it more attraction and that extra quantum leap. The table top game then caried with it a different perspective from outside the hobby than D&D had at the time. The reality, that the whole WW line was just a trad RPG system with some thespy trappings and a pretentious writing style was not immediately obvious to the new influx of players who knew nothing of D&D but just knew this was a cool game about vampires. It is not suprising that trad players migrated to it as it was a Route to Acceptance like dyeing your hair black and wearing a leather duster coat.

Quote from: 1989;6823424e is bad. Really bad. Worst D&D ever. Complete failure. Publisher recanted it. That's how bad.

i imagine 'corporate overlords regretted it, mearls got skittish about 4e' is closer to the truth, but it doesn't matter. it's a great little game ill suited to its brand name, and has its share of avid players. its online detractors don't mean anything.

Quote from: stuffis;686276i imagine 'corporate overlords regretted it, mearls got skittish about 4e' is closer to the truth, but it doesn't matter. it's a great little game ill suited to its brand name, and has its share of avid players. its online detractors don't mean anything.

All I know is that among the gamers I interact with, Pathfinder and 4E dnd are by far the dominant games represented.

Obviously that is not a reliable scientific analysis.

Quote from: Bill;686407All I know is that among the gamers I interact with, Pathfinder and 4E dnd are by far the dominant games represented.

Obviously that is not a reliable scientific analysis.

And in a year or so, it will almost certainly be "Pathfinder and D&D Next" that the majority of gamers will be playing if not just D&D Next. All your statement demonstrates is that 4e is the latest published edition; and the fact that you put Pathfinder in with it (and first!) is proof of just how bad a fuckup 4e was.

Quote from: RPGPundit;687104And in a year or so, it will almost certainly be "Pathfinder and D&D Next" that the majority of gamers will be playing if not just D&D Next. All your statement demonstrates is that 4e is the latest published edition; and the fact that you put Pathfinder in with it (and first!) is proof of just how bad a fuckup 4e was.

I just wish the demograpic was reversed,with the older versions in the lead.

Can't take away Paizo's success though.

I was, for a while, a big pathfinder fan, I just slowly came to realize it was not a good fit for me as a gm.

No one can deny that Paizo was very clever; half for the system they created and half for the marketing angle they chose.

RPGPundit

I'd be extremely surprised if Pathfinder players just left ship for Next "because D&D sticker on the cover". That thinking has already been proven to be false with 4e itself. This is a losing mentality.

Quote from: Benoist;687452I'd be extremely surprised if Pathfinder players just left ship for Next "because D&D sticker on the cover". That thinking has already been proven to be false with 4e itself. This is a losing mentality.

Well the problem was that 4e sucked hard enough that people left that for Pathfinder. All of my 5e playtesters who are have any experience are former Pathfinder players. The complexity wore on them after ten years, and they are liking the lighter system.

But we really won't know how things will shake out for at least a couple years. It could be that D&D players just aren't as picky as the past three years make them out to be.

Yup. What will actually matter is whether the game with the D&D sticker on it happens to be fun to play on its own merits for a sizable share of the market that satisfies Wizbro's bottom line. That's it.

Quote from: Benoist;687474Yup. What will actually matter is whether the game with the D&D sticker on it happens to be fun to play on its own merits for a sizable share of the market that satisfies Wizbro's bottom line. That's it.

I think over the last few years people have gotten used to the concept of playing older editions or alternate systems/clones to the point where the "D&D" name isn't something that can be taken for granted anymore. 5E's success will be determined by its ability to deliver something better than what people already have. I don't know that the "D&D" name slapped onto something 'meh' or something you have to jump through a series of hoops to get it to where you want is going to be enough.

Quote from: Benoist;687452I'd be extremely surprised if Pathfinder players just left ship for Next "because D&D sticker on the cover". That thinking has already been proven to be false with 4e itself. This is a losing mentality.

I think what it will give them is a shot at grabbing folks. People playing pathfinder will probably take a look at the game because it has D&D on the cover. Whether that translates into book sales and play at the table, depends on whether the content matches their needs (and I honestly have no idea if it will or will not).

What is clear to me is, at the moment, people do by and large, want to play some form of D&D.  But that means everything from pathfinder and 4E to retroclones or prior editions. So it is a big different from the 90s, when there were real alternatives to D&D being played. Yes, people do play other games, and I usually prefer other games. But I can't think of a game that rivals D&D, the way Vampire did.

Quote from: Benoist;687452I'd be extremely surprised if Pathfinder players just left ship for Next "because D&D sticker on the cover". That thinking has already been proven to be false with 4e itself. This is a losing mentality.

Most people who play a particular iteration of D&D don't think it's perfect (despite the postures of edition warriors). No doubt there's a fair chunk of the Pathfinder player base who might prefer something a little lighter.

Sure, 4E proves people won't play a game just because it has D&D in the name. But it doesn't prove the name has no value. 150,000 downloads of the playtest rules means shitloads of people are at least curious about Next. It's reasonable to expect a lot of those are Pathfinder players.

Quote from: Haffrung;687557Most people who play a particular iteration of D&D don't think it's perfect (despite the postures of edition warriors). No doubt there's a fair chunk of the Pathfinder player base who might prefer something a little lighter.

Sure, 4E proves people won't play a game just because it has D&D in the name. But it doesn't prove the name has no value. 150,000 downloads of the playtest rules means shitloads of people are at least curious about Next. It's reasonable to expect a lot of those are Pathfinder players.

Peoples curiosity may not translate into any cash, people thought 4e was going to crush the competition too ya know ;3

Let's get real about the playtest for a second. Mearls is a master ruseman, the playtest was just an excuse for him to keep cashing paychecks for a little while longer before he gets fired like every other "head of D&D" before him ^_^

Quote from: gamerGoyf;687563Let's get real about the playtest for a second. Mearls is a master ruseman, the playtest was just an excuse for him to keep cashing paychecks for a little while longer before he gets fired like every other "head of D&D" before him ^_^

Probably more true than anybody there wants to admit.

Quote from: jeff37923;687571Probably more true than anybody there wants to admit.

prolonging the inevitable  :banghead:

Wonder if anybody else will hire Mearls for rpg design/development work, after WotC fires him.

Quote from: Haffrung;687557Most people who play a particular iteration of D&D don't think it's perfect (despite the postures of edition warriors). No doubt there's a fair chunk of the Pathfinder player base who might prefer something a little lighter.

Sure, 4E proves people won't play a game just because it has D&D in the name. But it doesn't prove the name has no value. 150,000 downloads of the playtest rules means shitloads of people are at least curious about Next. It's reasonable to expect a lot of those are Pathfinder players.

The name may have value, but what if people decide that name applies to 1E-4E, or that Pathfinder various retroclones, or even something like 13th Age is for all intents and purposes D&D. I think we've passed the point where D&DNext or WotC for that matter can take the name for granted.

Quote from: Benoist;687452I'd be extremely surprised if Pathfinder players just left ship for Next "because D&D sticker on the cover". That thinking has already been proven to be false with 4e itself. This is a losing mentality.

I tend to agree with a qualifier.

People that play pathfinder for the builds and crunch might try 5e and then go back to pathfinder.


What I don't have a clue about, is what percentage of pathfinder fans love it for the crunch or for other reasons.