Legends and Lore: An Introduction

211 posts / 0 new
Last post
I'm not beating down on fans of old editions.  You're doing that yourself by going out of your way to conform to all the most negative stereotypes.  Are you sure you're not a pro-4e troll trying to make players of other editions look bad?
I'm not beating down on fans of old editions.  You're doing that yourself by going out of your way to conform to all the most negative stereotypes.  Are you sure you're not a pro-4e troll trying to make players of other editions look bad?



How is showing the practices of Hasbro/WotC being a negative sterotype?

What I said was true and your proving that by missing the key element.

Here again.
All you can do is call me names so I'll call you a semi-reactionary fanboy who doesn't like having his favorite company mocked! 



I don't expect everyone on the forums to magically know who I am - I don't post that much, and you seem newish, anyway.

But pretty much all of my posts for the last six months have been complaints about what I see as the negative direction WotC is taking D&D in, their poor customer relations, anemic product releases, and, to me, bizzare design decisions (trading card bonuses?  new power sources without new classes?).  I play 3.5 (not pathfinder) every weekend, and haven't played 4e in several months.

So believe me when I say I'm no WotC fanboy, and I'm not leaping to defense of WotC.

I find that Paizo, for the most part sums up D&D being based on adventure gaming with roleplay, setting and the sandbox campaign ethic as the hallmark of Pathfinder(PF).
I can be wrong about this as well. But, I have no dog in this fight other than that I feel they are doing a good job and if things went wrong for them there would be the cruel 'I told you so's' knocking themselves over to pee on PF. But, the fact that PF is doing quite well too see this reaction to trying to reach out to the other gamer community. 

It's a sign.

Like I said. I don't know what yet exactly but I am getting closer.

That said, I'm not really big on the PF world setting and I'm lukewarm on the rules as well..but there is a feel to it that shows through. BTW my gaming buddies lent me a copy over the Xmas break. Cool
I’ve removed content from this thread because baiting, flaming and trolling are violations of the Code of Conduct.  You can review the Code of Conduct here: wizards.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/wizards.cfg...

************

Please keep your posts polite, respectful, on-topic, and refrain from personal attacks and flaming, these are violations of the Code of Conduct.  You can review the Code here: wizards.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/wizards.cfg... . You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.

************

Please return discussion to the topic of the thread, or it may need to be closed.
Well, considering you are a LFR admin, I'll take it with a grain of salt about your comment on Essentials. Granted, the main gist of your post is sound. Essentials is not very popular in my area and is hated a lot by the locals but I'd hardly, as you said, project that as the norm across this nation of ours.

Care to explain why my position as a LFR admin has an impact on the validity of my comment on the Essential line and it having no impact on my own gaming community (as in: the people I regularly game with)? Note, that I do NOT count the whole LFR community as my own gaming community, because I don't, not by a long shot.

Of course, I am slightly biased to like WotC products (although I can assure you I am in no way happy with all their products), otherwise I would not be spending a lot of my free time on managing the LFR campaign. I am well aware of that, and that bias is also going to impact the people I regularly game with. It is exactly that bias that makes me extremely hesitent to apply my expierences to the LFR gaming community, let alone the gaming community at large.
It does show weakness.
The weakness is that 4e is the most reviled edition of D&D and divided the community like no other edition before.  
The weakness that WotC/Mearls cannot repair the community when it was the decision of WotC to fracture it.
Weakness engendered and encouraged by Slavisek at the onset of 4e to attack and despise all things of the past editions. 
You are not to blame.
You only follow the company.
You only buy it's products and turn your noses up at anything of the past. 
You still are not to blame.
You are part of the 'community'.
Now, WotC/Mearls wants you to play nice with us. None of you, especially the hardcore 4e lovers are going to accept input from an OSR player/DM with now (decades) of experience, let alone someone carrying a Pathfinder rulebook.
Paizo and OSR players are belittled and heckled in this community daily for being lovers of an older edition of a game that is an IP placeholder in a company that is losing money.
I am glad that D&D will die off or be sold off. 
Let it die a respectful death so it will not be tied to *EDIT* some lame toy line some years later.*EDIT*
Paizo has inherited the soul of the game and OSR will make sure that the past is well kept. 
Have fun with 4e and don't blame us, blame Hasbro and Slavisek.
Do not worry. We are pretty accepting folk. 
We'll make room at the table for you.

Just doing a little bit of editing to remove baseless and unfounded opinion presented as fact.

Here are the PHB essentia, in my opinion:
  • Three Basic Rules (p 11)
  • Power Types and Usage (p 54)
  • Skills (p178-179)
  • Feats (p 192)
  • Rest and Recovery (p 263)
  • All of Chapter 9 [Combat] (p 264-295)
A player needs to read the sections for building his or her character -- race, class, powers, feats, equipment, etc. But those are PC-specific. The above list is for everyone, regardless of the race or class or build or concept they are playing.
Just doing a little bit of editing to remove baseless and unfounded opinion presented as fact.

You missed a few. Wink
======= Balesir
 Just doing a little bit of editing to remove baseless and unfounded opinion presented as fact.



I see. I thought I was stating opinion. Oh well. 

Did you read the  links? Are those unfounded?

Let me know if the loss of profits from Hasbro and the statement from Hasbros COO are unfounded.
Not too mention the link to the community post.
Just doing a little bit of editing to remove baseless and unfounded opinion presented as fact.

You missed a few. Wink



Yeah he did. He missed like the point.
I thought I was stating opinion.
I did not strike through all of your opinions. Only the ones that were baseless, unfounded, and presented as fact.

Did you read the links? Are those unfounded?
All but one of the links is unfounded, but its presentation was irrelevant.

Let me know if the loss of profits from Hasbro and the statement from Hasbros COO are unfounded.
The only link that was "factual" is the marketwatch link. But your use of it was unfounded. Imagine... a toy company with less profit (not loos, just less profit) in a down economy. Oh my stars and garters, the sky is falling!

Not too mention the link to the community post.
The community post is largely filled with business-illiterates applying faulty logic to half-truths and making an emotional plea based on invalid conclusions. Beyond that, your use of it to indicate that it means there will be a sell-off od the D&D brand is, well, laughable and sad.
Here are the PHB essentia, in my opinion:
  • Three Basic Rules (p 11)
  • Power Types and Usage (p 54)
  • Skills (p178-179)
  • Feats (p 192)
  • Rest and Recovery (p 263)
  • All of Chapter 9 [Combat] (p 264-295)
A player needs to read the sections for building his or her character -- race, class, powers, feats, equipment, etc. But those are PC-specific. The above list is for everyone, regardless of the race or class or build or concept they are playing.
I thought I was stating opinion.
I did not strike through all of your opinions. Only the ones that were baseless, unfounded, and presented as fact.

 

Like the fact that Hasbro's profits are down 15% in sales 4Q?

Did you read the links? Are those unfounded?

All but one of the links is unfounded, but its presentation was irrelevant.


About how Hasbro's CEO Discusses Q4 2010 Results - Earnings Call Transcript mentions sales increases all around but leaves out one product: D&D?

Let me know if the loss of profits from Hasbro and the statement from Hasbros COO are unfounded.

The only link that was "factual" is the marketwatch link. But your use of it was unfounded. Imagine... a toy company with less profit (not loos, just less profit) in a down economy. Oh my stars and garters, the sky is falling!/


And look at the cancelled D&D products. 

Not too mention the link to the community post.

The community post is largely filled with business-illiterates applying faulty logic to half-truths and making an emotional plea based on invalid conclusions. Beyond that, your use of it to indicate that it means there will be a sell-off od the D&D brand is, well, laughable and sad.



/sigh 
And their and my opinions are not any less releavant.
Like the fact that Hasbro's profits are down 15% in sales 4Q?
This one falls into the categories of bsiness illiterate: Lower profits are still profits.

About how Hasbro's CEO Discusses Q4 2010 Results - Earnings Call Transcript mentions sales increases all around but leaves out one product: D&D?
It left out LOTS of products. D&D is not even WotC's main revenue product line. It has NEVER been mentioned in a Hasbro quarterly report except the one that announced Hasbro's purchase of WotC, and eve then, D&D was mentioned in a single sentence describing nearly all of WotC's assets and properties.

Above, you mention Q4 profits being down, and then here you mention Q4 sales being up. This is what I meant by statements reflecting business illiteracy. The more you speak, the more you prove my point.

And look at the cancelled D&D products.
Read the rest of this thread, and you will see that others have already pointed out why this is irrelevant.

And their and my opinions are not any less releavant?
Less relevant? Yes. Your opinions are less relevant to the state of Hasbro, WotC, and even this conversation.

Laughable and sad are contradictory. Which is it?
In your case, we'll still go with both.

Quit while you're behind.
Here are the PHB essentia, in my opinion:
  • Three Basic Rules (p 11)
  • Power Types and Usage (p 54)
  • Skills (p178-179)
  • Feats (p 192)
  • Rest and Recovery (p 263)
  • All of Chapter 9 [Combat] (p 264-295)
A player needs to read the sections for building his or her character -- race, class, powers, feats, equipment, etc. But those are PC-specific. The above list is for everyone, regardless of the race or class or build or concept they are playing.
You seem to be the one behind sir.

You failed to see the relevance.

That is not your fault.

Like WotC failing to listen.

That's not your fault either.

Like Mearls belittling PF (4ePHB pg.115) and calling for unity. 

Now you have to play nice with us.

So, much for that huh?
You failed to see the relevance.


How are your posts relevant to Legends and Lore? How are market figures important to a new column from WoTC?

Frankly, if you don't like 4e; then use pg. 115 of the PHB1 as a tissue. We don't like your kind around here; and when I say your kind, I mean people who exist only to complain on these boards.

The call of unity is what is relevant.

I make points to the effect.

Lower profits. Lack of mention of the D&D IP in profit reports.

The call for unity by one who started the PF bashing.

Seeing the relevance of this is made easier when you start to understand that the D&D brand and WotC is owned by a large multi-national corporation. 

Then true understanding can begin.

Lower profits.


I produce something and it costs me $20 to make it (work supplies, etc.). I sell it for $30. Woohoo! I made a profit.
Tomorrow, I produce something and it costs me $21 to make it, and I sell it for $30. Boo hoo. I fail at life because I made lower profits.

Wait; didn't I end up with more money than I took in? Isn't that what actually matters? Profits are still profits. 15% isn't a big decrease; infact, I think you could probably see that most corporations are doing a lot worse than "15% less profits".
That is not the point. 

It is the point that WotC/Hasbro have lost money and now call for unity.

That is relevant. 


Like Mearls belittling PF (4ePHB pg.115) and calling for unity. 



Can you explain what you mean by this?  I assume you are referring to the Ranger Paragon Path "Pathfinder" on page 114-115 of the PHB.  Why is this an example of Mr Mearls belittling the Pathfinder game?



That is not the point. 

It is the point that WotC/Hasbro have lost money and now call for unity.

That is relevant. 



Wait a second here. Lost Money you say. 15% lower profits are still profits. Go look up profits. Not Prophets (which you aren't). PROFITS.

Edit: Time to go to class; where normal people go to sleep, and the rest of us go to learn.
Profits are a part of business.

Loss or gain, they are what drives the decisions a business makes.

The path of these decisions are relevant.

Mearls has to make it clear what he means for unity.

This happens when you change a concept so radically it no longer bears any resemblence to it's orginal shape.

This has happened.


Like Mearls belittling PF (4ePHB pg.115) and calling for unity. 



Can you explain what you mean by this?  I assume you are referring to the Ranger Paragon Path "Pathfinder" on page 114-115 of the PHB.  Why is this an example of Mr Mearls belittling the Pathfinder game?

Not to mention that 4e PHB was written long before Pathfinder even existed. Funny that the thinks Mike Mearl has the power of prophecy ;)

(Side note: a reduction in profits can most definitely lead to the cancelation of a productline. I have worked in global companies where new things are not accepted unless they have a minimum profit of 30% and anything less leads to immediate cancelation. So while I agree that one thing (loss of profit) does not automatically lead to another (cancelation of D&D), it is certainly normal business practice.)


This happens when you change a concept so radically it no longer bears any resemblence to it's orginal shape.

This has happened.



Really? When we played 3.5 D&D was a bunch of friends sitting around experiencing stories of heroic fantasy and using a die based rule set to adjucate conflict. And now that we play 4th edition its... a bunch of friends sitting around experiencing stories of heroic fantasy and using a die based rule set to adjucate conflict.


The only thing different is that the rules are now much tighter, and in my opinion a heck of a lot less annoying.


The concept hasn't changed, just the execution, for the better in my mind.
Check out my new Gaming Blog: Josh's GM Thoughts
"Not to mention that 4e PHB was written long before Pathfinder even existed. Funny that the thinks Mike Mearl has the power of prophecy"

But not before Pathfinder was announced. 

One could not exist before the other.

It is relevant to understanding this next part.

The mention of the Wrong Step and Act Togather exploits were not an act of prophecy by WotC or plagarism by Paizo for a pargon path named Pathfinder.



Really? When we played 3.5 D&D was a bunch of friends sitting around experiencing stories of heroic fantasy and using a die based rule set to adjucate conflict. And now that we play 4th edition its... a bunch of friends sitting around experiencing stories of heroic fantasy and using a die based rule set to adjucate conflict.


The only thing different is that the rules are now much tighter, and in my opinion a heck of a lot less annoying.


The concept hasn't changed, just the execution, for the better in my mind.



This is what needs to happen more often. 

Editions are pointless.

They divide us. 

The meaning of unity and understanding starts here.

The other points are relevant when we are presented with a call for unity from one who divides the community or cares little for it.

Why did this not happen earlier?


"Not to mention that 4e PHB was written long before Pathfinder even existed. Funny that the thinks Mike Mearl has the power of prophecy"

But not before Pathfinder was announced. 

One could not exist before the other.

It is relevant to understanding this next part.

The mention of the Wrong Step and Act Togather exploits were not an act of prophecy by WotC or plagarism by Paizo for a pargon path named Pathfinder.



I'm so confused!  Please explain what you mean.  First you referrenced page 115 (now I see you were referring to the two powers Wrong Step and Act Together), implying (I thought) that is was a message to people about the Pathfinder game.  Is that what you are implying?  What is with the "One could not exist before the other" comment?

At the time Pathfinder was announced, the 4E PHB had already been completed.  Is your hypothesis that WotC then rushed out a last minute change, creating a new PP for Rangers called Pathfinder, and giving two of the powers meaningful names? 

Please give a clear and straightforward answer, with sentences that connect to form a meaningful whole.
 Please explain what you mean.  First you referrenced page 115 (now I see you were referring to the two powers Wrong Step and Act Together), implying (I thought) that is was a message to people about the Pathfinder game.  Is that what you are implying?



It is exactly what I am implying. 

It is a message from Mearls to Paizo and it's supporters. 

 What is with the "One could not exist before the other" comment?



It means that the Pargon Path name and aforementioned Exploit names are synomous with the announcement of Pathfinder as 4e was being published.

Paizo announced after the 4e playtests were done, it's intentions to make a new RPG supporting the OGL rules.

At the time Pathfinder was announced, the 4E PHB had already been completed.  Is your hypothesis that WotC then rushed out a last minute change, creating a new PP for Rangers called Pathfinder, and giving two of the powers meaningful names? 

Please give a clear and straightforward answer, with sentences that connect to form a meaningful whole.



You are correct.

You have done this for me already by stating my hypothesis as your own.

Mr. Mearls, knew of Paizo's plan as such and the names were perhaps an in house joke.
I do not think so.

But this is not important. 

I bring this and other points up in order to establish and verify the level of induced hostility towards anyone not embracing 4e.

Now we are  asked to look past these actions and make Wizards a home for all who play D&D.
Regardless of edition.

This is important.







dethand, your assumptions require such a leap in logic that I doubt even Superman could make it.

We're not leveling hostility at anyone who does not embrace 4E; we're leveling hostility at trolls. 
"Censorship is telling a man he can’t have a steak just because a baby can’t chew it.” ~Mark Twain
I assume nothing.

I point out past actions taken in this community.

Make of them what you will.

It is not hard to follow that the past WotC was hostile to anyone not in the 4e fold.



 
Amusing
and
sad
all at the same time.
But the amusement is waning fast. How do you add someone to your ignore list again?
Here are the PHB essentia, in my opinion:
  • Three Basic Rules (p 11)
  • Power Types and Usage (p 54)
  • Skills (p178-179)
  • Feats (p 192)
  • Rest and Recovery (p 263)
  • All of Chapter 9 [Combat] (p 264-295)
A player needs to read the sections for building his or her character -- race, class, powers, feats, equipment, etc. But those are PC-specific. The above list is for everyone, regardless of the race or class or build or concept they are playing.

Amusing
and
sad
all at the same time.
But the amusement is waning fast. How do you add someone to your ignore list again?


I think you go to their profile and there's a link under their profile picture. Or something like that.
"Censorship is telling a man he can’t have a steak just because a baby can’t chew it.” ~Mark Twain
Click on their avatar, click on block user.
Mudbunny SVCL for DDI Before you post, think of the Monkeysphere
Yikes.  All I can say is yikes.

I was going to write up a big response, but in the end decided it just wasn't worth it.  I'm going to continue having a blast playing games with my friends, and I suggest you do the same.  It doesn't matter what game we play; that was the point Mr Mearls was trying to make.




Yikes.  All I can say is yikes.

I was going to write up a big response, but in the end decided it just wasn't worth it.  I'm going to continue having a blast playing games with my friends, and I suggest you do the same.  It doesn't matter what game we play; that was the point Mr Mearls was trying to make.




Do not be alarmed.

I stated earlier that this is how the community reacts.

It is not your fault.

I do not mock your game.

I do not mock how you play your games.

People should debate about games. 

It is good.

People should not ignore each other.

This is sad.


What poetic form is the poster using? is that you Lobrix?
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
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.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
I think it is dissapointed-super haiku.
"In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move."-Douglas Adams
Zeitgeist, D&D style.

And it gets worse: In Dragon Magazine 380 at page 85 one of Mearls's co-conspirators reveals himself by acurately predicting Dethand's reaction with a feat. Chris Sims.. I KNEW it.

In  the same issue Peter Schaefer also reveals himself by dedicating yet another feat to Dethand on page 20.

Its starting to scare me.

Reality is just a continuous stream of failed pereption checks, the dragons are real!

I don't know about how much anti-3E, anti-4E, anti-whatever that goes on here...but I just want to make a point.

Ever since WotC has gained  control of the D&D IP, backwards support has been non-existant.

Why can't WotC support legacy rulesets for D&D? If 4E is your thing, great...go get 'em! If you love 3E, go skill and feat yourself however you want. Same for 2E, 1E and Basic (in its various flavors).

My problem is that, I love Basic D&D (Moldvay, Cook, Marsh and Mentzer = heroes IMO). But I can't purchase anything for it anymore. I don't have time to write new worlds and dungeons for my gaming group. I want old school content. I also don't want to spend HOURS converting 4E and 3E adventures to Basic D&D. I want new content. Why can't I get it?

Why won't WotC republish prior versions of the game? Why can't I go buy a reprinting of AD&D 2E from the WotC website. I completely understand why they don't push these products to retail outlets...the demand for them is minimal, but they can provide them as direct purchases from their website.

You cannot lay demands for unity among the D&D fans and yet deny those who choose to not play your latest ruleset. If D&D is truly embodied with the mantra of "No specific rule, no random opinion, no game concept from an R&D designer", then why must WotC force me to purchase their new systems in order to get new content?

You could probably make more money by supporting ALL prior versions of D&D instead of rewriting the core rules every few years. Don't discontinue products. You don't have to stock shelves or keep a warehouse of goods. Partner with service providers like Lulu.com to publish past content at premium prices. I'll pay, I don't mind.

Just support those of us who choose to play a version other than your current "latest and greatest".

(edit: I think it's funny that I joined these forums in 2006, but I have never posted until today)
They don't have the rights to previous versions. The same reason no company is making star wars 7-9.
"In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move."-Douglas Adams
They don't have the rights to previous versions. The same reason no company is making star wars 7-9.


AFAIK, When WotC purchased TSR, they purchased the right to every IP TSR owned. That includes every previous version of D&D.

Now, I may be wrong, perhaps some stipulation of legal agreements between TSR, WotC, Arneson, Gygax or other parties may prevent the re-publishing of prior generation D&D content, but that information has never been released that I am aware of.

WotC purchased TSR and all its intellectual property. They can republish any of the old TSR published material that they wish (perhaps they would be required to relinquish the TSR trademark from such a product, but they would want to do that anyway).

This is further evidenced by WotC's recent publication of Tomb of Horrors for 4th Edition. Tomb of Horrors was published by TSR in 1978. WotC recently converted it to 4th Edition (though I am not sure regarding the extent of changes made) and published it under the same name.

If they didn't have the rights to publish previous versions, this would, in fact, be copyright violation by WotC...but it isn't, because they do have the rights to republish any and all of the content that was once owned by TSR.

Of course, there is a chance I am wrong...but until a WotC lawyer chimes in and explains otherwise, I won't believe it. 
Sign In to post comments