Dear designers and marketing team: everything you are doing is bad.

95 posts / 0 new
Last post
That title just filled about a thousand fans with rage who are already typing furious replies, so I should start out by saying I'm probably not going to respond to any of them.

I'm a former long-term forumer who left a while ago because I didn't like the direction Mearls was taking the game with Essentials.  I haven't posted in a long time, but I still stop by now and then to read the articles and see where 5e might be heading.  I just wanted to express some dissatisfaction. 

I left because I didn't like the direction things were headed.  A lot of other people didn't like the direction either, and many of them probably stopped hanging around too.  I just want to make sure that Mearls, and now Cook, and the rest of the designers and market researchers, don't forget that there are people who did like D&D, and who could be 5e customers, who aren't participating in this web site anymore.  All of these new polls about what 5e should be like worry me because it looks like Mearls is essentially doing market research on an echo chamber.

When 3e came out, it alienated some 2e folks, when 3.5e came out, it alienated some 3e folks, when 4e came out, it alienated quite a lot of 3.5e folks, and when 4.E came out, it alienated a bunch of 4.0 folks.  The people who are left regularly participating on this site are people who were happy with the shift from 3 to 3.5 to 4.0 to 4.E to the future.  In short, they are the people who stood by every change D&D made and are happy with Mearls's recent changes and the decision to start going retro.  Setting up a bunch of polls asking if these people like everything Mearls wants to do and then getting back a "yes" does not mean that these ideas for 5e are actually good ideas.  It means you've narrowed down your fans to Mearls fans.  The polls are also incredibly "leading", they follow an article all about how Mearls or Monte thinks that something from 3e/4e sucks, and how a very vague and not thought out idea might somehow be better, and then ask "So which is better, the new awesome thing, or the crappy terrible thing that I will phrase in such a way that most people won't choose it?"

So I just want to make sure my voice is heard, and make sure WotC remembers that there are people who actually LIKED 4e who could be your 5e customers, and there were people who actually LIKED 3.5 and moved to Pathfinder who could also be your 5e customers, and that it's a bad idea to put two people who hate 3e and 4e in charge of 5e, and believing that questionably worded polls show that "the majority" agree with them that 1e was the only good edition and that everything from the last twenty years needs to be scrapped.

Retro is bad.  Unbalanced is bad.  Making all the rules flimsy and unusable on purpose to allow "DM freedom" to try and rule on the fly is bad.  System Mastery is bad.  "Rules hurt roleplay so we're allowed to make **** rules that everyone will ignore" is bad.  "It doesn't matter that my designs are unbalanced and won't work in an actual gameplay setting, because they're REALISTIC and FREE and FLAVORFUL" is bad.  "Magic and items and powers and classes and monsters shouldn't be held to strict formulas, we should be free to write whatever numbers we want and the DM should figure out how to balance it on his own" is bad.  Pretty much everything I've read in L&L is bad, bad, bad.

If you look at the poll numbers though, everyone seems to be totally on board with turning 5e into 1e.  The forums will be full of people rabidly defending every column and every idea that gets posted by the designers.  Please, PLEASE, just remember that these people aren't the only ones out there.  Float these ideas in front of Pathfinder fans, in front of people who don't like Essentials, in front of people who stuck with 3.5 or 3.0, in front of younger kids who like WoW, and lots of other groups.  All of them could be 5e customers if you do it right.  If you stay insular and only bounce these ideas off a bunch of 1e grognards, of course it will seem like you've found the ultimate design to 5e.  PLEASE tell me that you have designers out there trying these ideas on people who aren't already 100% predisposed to agree with everything the designers are going to say.

Thanks, and see you in a few months when I'm next filled with nerd rage. ;)

-makeshiftwings
i'm gonna keep this short:

i think 4th sucked, gave it like 3 campaigns of effort, and swore it off til they busted out the essentials stuff.  it's still not very good, but tolerable enough to hang out with my gaming group.

i've liked the ideas behind most L&L columns, if not the specific suggested implementation that at least the concept (the idea of this statement to disprove the thesis of your post that only grognards and people that like everything post here with a quick example to the contrary, because arguing your post on a point by point basis will do nothing for either you or me)

"System Mastery is bad."
4th is a pile of system mastery on the player end so I don't know what you mean by this.
Well then...
You say you stop in every now and then to check things out. I doubt that. If you actually did, you would see just as many people posting their concerns and criticisms as there are agreeing with the staus quo. Claiming that the forum members who chose to not flee for greener pastures are simply brainless slaves to whims of the might WotC and will buy whatever is passed in front of them is...well...a boastful claim, to say the least, and downright wrong to boot. Check any given thread that discusses the direction Cook plans to take things. You will see your own words mirrored back in spades. Many of us are concerned about the future direction of the game, but perhaps feel it is better to stay here and stay abreast of the situations as they unfold rather than tuck tail and run, effectively sticking our heads in the sand whenever anyone mentions a "new direction" for the game we all love.
I just want to make sure that Mearls, and now Cook, and the rest of the designers and market researchers, don't forget


I don't believe you.  I remember you, makeshiftwings, and I know that you know that the best way to get a message to the developers is through Customer Service.  These forums, and "General" Discussion in particular isn't designed for communicating to the designers.  It's designed for communicating with the community, the folks you decry as an "echo chamber".  But you know this.

Please people, don't rise to the bait.  Let the thread just die.
don't rise to the bait.  Let the thread just die.

+1

Sory Wrecan, I just can't...
I just can't read through that and not point out that many of the people in this forum are not just those who liked the change from 3.5 to 4 to 4.1, but a lot of the people here are new players brought in by the changes in the game.
I like where the game has gone in 4e, I like the new DM books like Monster Vault 1 and 2, the Neverwinter champaign book and Mordenkainen’s Magnificent Emporium, I think we are getting some of the best the game has to offer...
From what I can tell what you want from the game is very ridgid rules. Great, you don't have to rule on the fly, L&L is talking about ideas and concepts to think about, its like D&D philosiphy not market research. And while you might think both responces in their questions are leading, Im sure if I went over to the World of Darkness sites and looked at their ideas of good gaming Id dislike my options there as well. Not saying its bad, just not for me.
If you are so dead set against the change, when Mearls and Cook ring your door bell to take away your books, don't answer and hide under your bed. Keep playing the game you love and be happy for it. You are never made to change your game because of a web page.

Im just so frustraded by posts like this. No game can please everyone, for everyone of you there is one of me, someone who picks and choses what I like from the large array of D&D offerings and thinks the game has only gotten better since I first picked up a D&D book in late 2007.

And again sorry Wrecan
In the Nentir Vale, all injured creatures are required to wear a name tag!
Agreed! Death to this thread!
Surely you don't mean to invalidate the original poster's opinion.
Love how grognards assume that the maximum number of people who played D&D were in the 1e/2e days, and the numbers have been declining ever since, with no new players who happen to like it.
Salla, on minions: I typically use them as encounter filler. 'I didn't quite fill out the XP budget, not enough room left for a decent near-level monster ... sprinkle in a few minions'. Kind of like monster styrofoam packing peanuts.
Pandering to hardcore fans isn't always good, and TV Tropes can show you why.
Love how grognards assume [...]

What is your definition of grognard such that you feel comfortable asserting that they all make this assumption?
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.
Love how grognards assume [...]

What is your definition of grognard such that you feel comfortable asserting that they all make this assumption?


My definition of "grognard" is "person who irrationally feels that previous version X of anything (RPGs, Music, Interpretive Dance, etc) is better than any version that has come out subsiquently, and anyone who feels otherwise is an idiot, because only the grognard's opinion is valid, end of discussion."

Is there a more specific definition when dealing with RPG grognards?  I didn't mean to offend anybody who prefers old editions in a rational manner.
Salla, on minions: I typically use them as encounter filler. 'I didn't quite fill out the XP budget, not enough room left for a decent near-level monster ... sprinkle in a few minions'. Kind of like monster styrofoam packing peanuts.
Surely you don't mean to invalidate the original poster's opinion.


Yup.
It is not my intent to offend. However, it is also not my concern whether you get offended or not.
In short, they are the people who stood by every change D&D made and are happy with Mearls's recent changes and the decision to start going retro.  Setting up a bunch of polls asking if these people like everything Mearls wants to do and then getting back a "yes" does not mean that these ideas for 5e are actually good ideas.  It means you've narrowed down your fans to Mearls fans.

I suppose there could be something to that.  I was thinking they'd just resorted to outright falsifying the poll results.  That last one, where Cook demonstrated blatant unfamiliarity with 4e, then suggested a 'new' idea that wasn't new at all, and didn't make much sense, /and/ was told so in no uncertain terms on the forums (and other forums) and comments section, and still got big aproval on the poll?  That just rang false. 

Retro is bad.  Unbalanced is bad.  Making all the rules flimsy and unusable on purpose to allow "DM freedom" to try and rule on the fly is bad.  System Mastery is bad.  "Rules hurt roleplay so we're allowed to make **** rules that everyone will ignore" is bad.  "It doesn't matter that my designs are unbalanced and won't work in an actual gameplay setting, because they're REALISTIC and FREE and FLAVORFUL" is bad.  "Magic and items and powers and classes and monsters shouldn't be held to strict formulas, we should be free to write whatever numbers we want and the DM should figure out how to balance it on his own" is bad.  Pretty much everything I've read in L&L is bad, bad, bad.

You exagerate... slightly.

Want to see the best of 4e included in 5e?  Join the Old Guard of 4e.

5e really needs something like Wrecan's SARN-FU to support "Theatre of the Mind."

"You want The Tooth?  You can't handle The Tooth!"  - Dahlver-Nar.

"If magic is unrestrained in the campaign, D&D quickly degenerates into a weird wizard show where players get bored quickly"  - E. Gary Gygax

 

 

Oops, looks like this request tried to create an infinite loop. We do not allow such things here. We are a professional website!

There are things that have been... disappointing. I would hope the lessens of the Essentials mistakes would improve the new edition after 4th instead of being a foreboding of things to come.
Terms you should know...
Show
Kit Build - A class build that is self sustaining and has mechanical differences than the normal scale. Started in Essentials. Most are call their own terms, though the Base Class should be said in front of their own terms (Like Assassin/Executioner) Power Points - A mechanic that was wedged into the PHB3 classes (with the exception of the Monk) from the previous editions. This time, they are used to augment At Wills to be Encounters, thus eliminating the need to choose powers past 4th level. Mage Builds - Kit builds that are schools of magic for the Wizard. A call back to the previous editions powering up of the wizard. (Wizard/Necromancer, for example) Unlike the previous kit builds, Wizards simply lose their Scribe Rituals feature and most likely still can choose powers from any build, unlike the Kit Builds. Parcel System - A treasure distribution method that keeps adventurers poor while forcing/advising the DM to get wish lists from players. The version 2.0 rolls for treasure instead of making a list, and is incomplete because of the lack of clarity about magic item rarity.
ha ha
56902498 wrote:
They will Essentialize the Essentials classes, otherwise known as Essentials2. The new sub-sub-classes will be: * Magician. A subsubclass of Mage, the magician has two implements, wand and hat, one familiar (rabbit) and series of basic tricks. * Crook. A subsubclass of Thief, the Crook can only use a shiv, which allows him to use his only power... Shank. * Angry Vicar, a subsubclass of warpriest, the angry vicar has two attacks -- Shame and Lecture. * Hitter. A subsubclass of Slayer, the Hitter hits things. * Gatherer. A subsubclass of Hunter, it doesn't actually do anything, but pick up the stuff other players might leave behind. Future Essentials2 classes include the Security Guard (Sentinel2), the Hexknife (Hexblade2), the Webelos (Scout2), the Gallant (Cavalier2) and the Goofus (Knight2). These will all be detailed in the box set called Heroes of the Futile Marketing. (Though what they should really release tomorrow is the Essentialized version of the Witchalok!)
Essentials forwards has been a bit messed up in some regards. I could see making an easier compatible product but renaming classes and not supporting Pre-Essentials stuff more is poor marketing.

Biggest mistake WotC made though was dropping the ball on the VT imo. 
Lets see if I can translate the OP in something less flamish.


  • I was a fan of the previous edition

  • I'm not a fan of the current edition
    I don't like the direction this edition took
    I'm not part of the current fanbase

  • Please don't forget to expand your fanbase with the new edition.
    (for example, taking a direction that people who play previous editions like)



To that, let me say:

There's a difference between maintaining the current fanbase (as opposite to losing your current fanbase), and expanding your fanbase (as opposite to no new fans).

Polls on the WotC website and stuff, are to maintain the current fanbase, not to expand the fanbase.
Qube's block builder: if you want to create blocks for powers, items and monsters for this forum, but don't know html
Signature in a box
For years, I've lived a double life. In the day, I do my job - I ride the bus, roll up my sleeves with the hoi-polloi. But at night, I live a life of exhilaration, of missed heartbeats and adrenalin. And, if the truth be known a life of dubious virtue. I won't deny it - I've been engaged in violence, even indulged in it. I've maimed and killed adversaries, and not merely in self-defence. I've exhibited disregard for life, limb and property, and savoured every moment. You may not think it, to look of me but I have commanded armies, and conquered worlds. And though in achieving these things I've set morality aside, I have no regrets. For though I've led a double life, at least I can say - I've lived.

3.jpg
D&D Home Page - What Monster Are You? - Stone Gaint

Scipio: And Chihuahuas have definitely improved in the "attacking ankles, yapping, and being generally annoying" environment. Me: OK, am I the only who sees an analogy between forum trolls & Chihuahuas?
Some of my work:
XDMC 19 (silver): A full fledged assassins guild (with stats, skill challenges, ...)link XDMC 14 (Bronze): a one shot campaign for beginning DMs/players. link XDMC 16: Paragon path: the Epitome: being better then all then any one else. link (note: this is balanced) XDMC 25: The Gelatinous Cube mount Guide To Disreality: a collection of houserules - Introduction & table of content
My ego in a box
who am I kidding? my ego would never fit in a box
I don't like essentials.  I really don't.  I have never played an essentials character past lvl 2.    Despite that, I think that this thread is completly lackinging in solid reasoning.

1. I don't like the direction the game is going in, yet I still read the forums alot and ocasionally post.  Not everyone who is unhappy with the direction of the game has left.

2. Nothing is stoping you from playing a 2nd, 3rd, 3.5 or non essential 4e game with your friends.  Nothing at all.  The books are out there and the content is still available.  Not two weeks ago my friends and I started played a 2nd edition campaign.  All you need are some friends who want to do that.  If you hate essentials, set up a game where no one can use essential characters.  Dislike some of the eratas? ignore them.  Think some feats are game breaking? Ban them.  Whenever my friend DMs a campaign he always bans Changelings and Bugbears and lets players pick any other race.  Why? because he thinks they are game breaking.

3.  They are still making content for non essential classes.  Sure, not nearly as often, but its still comming out.

4.  If you don't like the new material don't buy it.  I havn't purchased a single essential product.  Thats my way of complaining.  Sales are going to control the direction of the game.

5.  There really is room for everyone.  Just find people who want to play the same style campaign that you do.
Just because were not talking in person does not mean you have to be an @#$%^&*
EDITION WAR ALERT ! ! ! ! !

An edition war thread is being born before our eyes. Just stop.

(let it die please, this thread is a waste of electrons)
I actually like many of the things the OP posts as bad, and I hope 5e does go that way. But ultimately, what might work best is a core rules book, followed by second - more complicated/realistic/simulation - "optional" rules book. Then they could better satisfy both ends of the gaming spectrum.
> That last one, where Cook demonstrated blatant unfamiliarity with 4e, then
> suggested a 'new' idea that wasn't new at all, and didn't make much sense,
> /and/ was told so in no uncertain terms on the forums (and other forums) and
> comments section, and still got big aproval on the poll?

I have a feeling that a fair number of Pathfinder folks followed him there and voted in favor because he was pitching it.

Mind you, I'm also coming to suspect that many of those L&L columns are meant to speak to old-E fans (rather than current 4E players) and the columns are thus written assuming that they don't know how 4E works.
My definition of "grognard" is "person who irrationally feels that previous version X of anything (RPGs, Music, Interpretive Dance, etc) is better than any version that has come out subsiquently, and anyone who feels otherwise is an idiot, because only the grognard's opinion is valid, end of discussion."

I disagree with defining the term in a manner that makes it inherently an insult.
Is there a more specific definition when dealing with RPG grognards?  I didn't mean to offend anybody who prefers old editions in a rational manner.

I consider a grognard anyone who remembers older editions of a game with fondness. Such a definition has no relation to an assessment of current versions of the game. By this definition:


  • Some grognards do not like the current edition (the OP?).

  • Some grognards love the current edition (including myself).

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.
My definition of "grognard" is "person who irrationally feels that previous version X of anything (RPGs, Music, Interpretive Dance, etc) is better than any version that has come out subsiquently, and anyone who feels otherwise is an idiot, because only the grognard's opinion is valid, end of discussion."

I disagree with defining the term in a manner that makes it inherently an insult.
Is there a more specific definition when dealing with RPG grognards?  I didn't mean to offend anybody who prefers old editions in a rational manner.

I consider a grognard anyone who remembers older editions of a game with fondness. Such a definition has no relation to an assessment of current versions of the game. By this definition:


  • Some grognards do not like the current edition (the OP?).

  • Some grognards love the current edition (including myself).



Interesting.  I had always inferred that it meant "the complainers," which is kind of what the original french word means:  an old grumbling soldier.

I'll refrain from using in that manner in the future. 
Salla, on minions: I typically use them as encounter filler. 'I didn't quite fill out the XP budget, not enough room left for a decent near-level monster ... sprinkle in a few minions'. Kind of like monster styrofoam packing peanuts.

Dear Wizards:


 I have been a D&D player since I was a child and I have always enjoyed it.  I’ve kept up with the changes from edition to edition despite my frequent grousing about such changes.  I think with Fourth Edition you’ve hit a sweet spot in game design and I really enjoy it, but I fear that the Essentials line has really caused you to hit a snag.  It’s vast and sweeping rules changes are too broad for me to ignore, and I feel you unnecessarily compel me to incorporate the totally optional rule changes in Essentials into my existing campaign.  I cannot handle the slight changes to the power system and thinking about one class having two roles gives me a migraine.  While Essentials is only about a year old, I can already tell that you are committed to continued publication and that you intend to knock into the mud any player that may want to continue playing the Fourth Edition I’ve known and loved for the last few years.


 I know you are just trying to expand the player base and give current players more options, but I can’t abide by that.  If you want my money, I insist that you go back to cooking up semi-annual splat books featuring semi-useless feats until you paint yourself into a design corner from which D&D will never escape.  I know that’s asking a lot, but that’s the price of my continued support of your products.  Just to show you how far I am willing to go, I will refuse to use the Character Builder despite how much easier it makes building characters.  My lack of login and the transfer of my consumer dollars away from you to Ticonderoga Pencils will be the ultimate demonstrate of my resolve.


 Please, WotC, stop innovating.  Please stop trying to take any sort of risk or attempting to push the envelope in game design.  I feel as though I am constantly being pushed out of my safe place and it is no longer socially acceptable for me to carry my security blanket at all times.  I am afraid of the direction D&D is taking, but I am equally paralyzed by the notion of trying another system.  As such, my only option is to fire volleys of forum posts at you in the hopes that you will listen and stop with all the creative changes you have made. 


 All I desire is more of the same mother’s milk you’ve provided for the last few years and I do not want to be weaned off with different fare.


 

Rule one isn’t “The DM is always right.” Rule one is: Everyone should be having fun at the table. Plans for 5e: Kill the d20, and replace it with a bell curve for task resolution.

Dear Wizards:


 I have been a D&D player since I was a child and I have always enjoyed it.  I’ve kept up with the changes from edition to edition despite my frequent grousing about such changes.  I think with Fourth Edition you’ve hit a sweet spot in game design and I really enjoy it, but I fear that the Essentials line has really caused you to hit a snag.  It’s vast and sweeping rules changes are too broad for me to ignore, and I feel you unnecessarily compel me to incorporate the totally optional rule changes in Essentials into my existing campaign.  I cannot handle the slight changes to the power system and thinking about one class having two roles gives me a migraine.  While Essentials is only about a year old, I can already tell that you are committed to continued publication and that you intend to knock into the mud any player that may want to continue playing the Fourth Edition I’ve known and loved for the last few years.


 I know you are just trying to expand the player base and give current players more options, but I can’t abide by that.  If you want my money, I insist that you go back to cooking up semi-annual splat books featuring semi-useless feats until you paint yourself into a design corner from which D&D will never escape.  I know that’s asking a lot, but that’s the price of my continued support of your products.  Just to show you how far I am willing to go, I will refuse to use the Character Builder despite how much easier it makes building characters.  My lack of login and the transfer of my consumer dollars away from you to Ticonderoga Pencils will be the ultimate demonstrate of my resolve.


 Please, WotC, stop innovating.  Please stop trying to take any sort of risk or attempting to push the envelope in game design.  I feel as though I am constantly being pushed out of my safe place and it is no longer socially acceptable for me to carry my security blanket at all times.  I am afraid of the direction D&D is taking, but I am equally paralyzed by the notion of trying another system.  As such, my only option is to fire volleys of forum posts at you in the hopes that you will listen and stop with all the creative changes you have made. 


 All I desire is more of the same mother’s milk you’ve provided for the last few years and I do not want to be weaned off with different fare.


 




Spread your wings and fly, little eagle, spread your wings and fly!

The direction going forward doesnt really have much choice. It has to call back many of those who have been lost and it has to patch up a community that is badly fragmented. Paizo has managed to form a whole company that competes on equal terms in sales, purely from those left behind and their creative energy.

To make matters worse, much of what 4th edition did well has been squandered or misused. It's a horrible lack of direction that doesnt even support the core product in what it does best.

I just want to second some of makeshiftwings' initial statement. As some one who has recently come back to these forums (and is already thinking about walking away), I feel that this forum environment is VERY critical to anyone who is not a hardcore fan of 4e. The statement about the echo chamber rings true to me. 


 


I would also like to know what is a realistic way to communicate to wizards about concerns for future development. Someone mentioned customer service. Seriously? That is the way wizards want us to message to the designers? I find that hard to believe, but if someone has actual experience with that being effective, I would love to hear about it. 


  



The direction going forward doesnt really have much choice. It has to call back many of those who have been lost and it has to patch up a community that is badly fragmented. Paizo has managed to form a whole company that competes on equal terms in sales, purely from those left behind and their creative energy.

To make matters worse, much of what 4th edition did well has been squandered or misused. It's a horrible lack of direction that doesnt even support the core product in what it does best.





What Paizo does really well is support their product line and publish regularly. I do NOT like the pathfinder system, but I am drawn to their products just based on the consistency of quality and support. With wizards, you feel that they are thrashing about looking for some kind of magic formula/product that is going to be the next big thing. It reminds me of the way TV shows are now developed, where if it is not an instant sensation, it is abandoned. I also think that they must be pouring a lot of money into VTT, and this is hurting their bread and butter product lines. 



As some one who has recently come back to these forums (and is already thinking about walking away), I feel that this forum environment is VERY critical to anyone who is not a hardcore fan of 4e.


Yep.

As some one who has recently come back to these forums (and is already thinking about walking away), I feel that this forum environment is VERY critical to anyone who is not a hardcore fan of 4e.


Yep.



It's not very critical to "anyone" who is not a hardcore fan of 4e.  There are people with well-formed, legitimate reasons disliking a wide variety of aspects of 4e.  I myself have been highly critical of the Essentials design philosophy, and have never hid it.  I've gotten into reasoned, meaningful debates with people who disagreed, but I never felt beat up about it.

Who the forum is harsh to, however, are the people who come in saying "I don't like 4e" and then list incomplete, inaccurate, and oversimplified reasons why.  As people with more knowledge of the system and what it does and does not do well, the forum denizens rightly criticize complaints that aren't backed by what the system actually does.  And then the complainer gets all mad, typically, because they don't feel like they're being heard - when in reality they were heard, they were told they weren't seeing the system from the fullest possible perspective.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition

I just want to second some of makeshiftwings' initial statement. As some one who has recently come back to these forums (and is already thinking about walking away), I feel that this forum environment is VERY critical to anyone who is not a hardcore fan of 4e. The statement about the echo chamber rings true to me.




It's the result of years of people coming here talking crap about 4e, it put people on edge. It's basically assumed that if someone joins with less then 50 posts and starts saying that 4e is bad, that he's trolling and/or hating on 4e. That's just how it goes.

 


I would also like to know what is a realistic way to communicate to wizards about concerns for future development. Someone mentioned customer service. Seriously? That is the way wizards want us to message to the designers? I find that hard to believe, but if someone has actual experience with that being effective, I would love to hear about it. 




Generally speaking the last thing you want as a major company is to have people mailing your designers. After all, those people have a job to do and they don't want a million mails from people who think they know better or just hate the system they built every day.
So yeah, customer service or the forum is probably your best bet, and even then you might not be heard. That's how it goes.
Epic Dungeon Master

Want to give your players a kingdom of their own? I made a 4e rule system to make it happen!

Your Kingdom awaits!
Update 5th Sep 2011: Added a sample kingdom, as well as sample of play.
As some one who has recently come back to these forums (and is already thinking about walking away), I feel that this forum environment is VERY critical to anyone who is not a hardcore fan of 4e.


Yep.




I disagree, it's not that unfriendly - take a look at the thread about the person asking if they should stick with 3.5 or go to 4e, it's a very civil thread. The difference between that thread and some of the other ones is that the OP isn't making accusations about 4e that are not true.  

On the other hand, when people make threads basically saying that 4e doesn't offer anything in the way of roleplaying, which is just a bold face lie, people are going to correct it because the person is flat out wrong. 

Also, people tend to get better reception on these boards when they don't point fingers at people and insult them when that person provides some constructive critisim in a very polite manner.



Welcome to ZomboniLand - My D&D Blog http://zomboniland.blogspot.com/
As some one who has recently come back to these forums (and is already thinking about walking away), I feel that this forum environment is VERY critical to anyone who is not a hardcore fan of 4e.


Yep.



It's not very critical to "anyone" who is not a hardcore fan of 4e.  There are people with well-formed, legitimate reasons disliking a wide variety of aspects of 4e.  I myself have been highly critical of the Essentials design philosophy, and have never hid it.  I've gotten into reasoned, meaningful debates with people who disagreed, but I never felt beat up about it.

Who the forum is harsh to, however, are the people who come in saying "I don't like 4e" and then list incomplete, inaccurate, and oversimplified reasons why.  As people with more knowledge of the system and what it does and does not do well, the forum denizens rightly criticize complaints that aren't backed by what the system actually does.  And then the complainer gets all mad, typically, because they don't feel like they're being heard - when in reality they were heard, they were told they weren't seeing the system from the fullest possible perspective.



And I can't think of any threads that started out like that.
Welcome to ZomboniLand - My D&D Blog http://zomboniland.blogspot.com/
Translated OP: Dear Designers and Marketers: Your game sucks because I like an old one better. You're utter failures unless you make a new edition that caters to me rather than those who like your game.

Same crap, different thread with petty, whiny 3tards spewing their crap rather than just playing the game they do like because everything should cater to them.
I feel that this forum environment is VERY critical to anyone who is not a hardcore fan of 4e.

I believe your opening return post and that of the OP belie this claim.

These forums are very critical of anyone who wants to walk in from the cold, drop a load of craptalk on 4e, and then call it constructive. Your post managed to mix quite a bit of the good in with the bad, making it seem like it was not a craptalk, but it was a generally unwise approach to your first comments out of the gate.

This community is quite capable of engaging in constructive criticism. But nobody with criticism, constructive or destructive, is going to receive a glowing fullagreement response because regardless of what you are criticizing (constructively or not), a sizable and active portion of the Forum-using player base likes it.


  • Some are blind sycophants of all things WotC has made and will make.

  • Some are enthusiastic fanboys that like the current version of D&D more than anything.

  • But most are content 4e players who have only a few aspects of the game they could without and choose to spend their time focusing on the majority of the game that they like.

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.
Translated OP: Dear Designers and Marketers: Your game sucks because I like an old one better. You're utter failures unless you make a new edition that caters to me rather than those who like your game.

Same crap, different thread with petty, whiny 3tards spewing their crap rather than just playing the game they do like because everything should cater to them.




This is a perfect example of the hostility I mentioned earlier. I know the media of boards fosters this for various reason, but seriously, this is just bizarre to me. 4e is a game system. It's not your child. I got back on the forums to be part of a community and instead people are either really condescending or just out-right hostile. 



Translated OP: Dear Designers and Marketers: Your game sucks because I like an old one better. You're utter failures unless you make a new edition that caters to me rather than those who like your game.

Same crap, different thread with petty, whiny 3tards spewing their crap rather than just playing the game they do like because everything should cater to them.




This is a perfect example of the hostility I mentioned earlier. I know the media of boards fosters this for various reason, but seriously, this is just bizarre to me. 4e is a game system. It's not your child. I got back on the forums to be part of a community and instead people are either really condescending or just out-right hostile. 







... Didn't you call someone who disagreed with you an Apologist a while back in a thread you created because he offered you some advice/mildly disagreed with you? And wouldn't that be considered both condescending AND out-right hostile.

Just saying....
"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
I feel that this forum environment is VERY critical to anyone who is not a hardcore fan of 4e.

I believe your opening return post and that of the OP belie this claim.

These forums are very critical of anyone who wants to walk in from the cold, drop a load of craptalk on 4e, and then call it constructive. Your post managed to mix quite a bit of the good in with the bad, making it seem like it was not a craptalk, but it was a generally unwise approach to your first comments out of the gate.

This community is quite capable of engaging in constructive criticism. But nobody with criticism, constructive or destructive, is going to receive a glowing fullagreement response because regardless of what you are criticizing (constructively or not), a sizable and active portion of the Forum-using player base likes it.


  • Some are blind sycophants of all things WotC has made and will make.

  • Some are enthusiastic fanboys that like the current version of D&D more than anything.

  • But most are content 4e players who have only a few aspects of the game they could without and choose to spend their time focusing on the majority of the game that they like.





I kind of got into the forums because it seems that 5th edition is coming down the line and I was worried that all the GOOD stuff in 4th was going to get ejected by a design team that wanted to capture the pathfinder market share. So I find the hostility especially ironic. I have no emotional attachment to any game system (beyond some occasional nostalgic fondness). This seems like the kind of fan-boy psychology that I associate with sports teams. 




Translated OP: Dear Designers and Marketers: Your game sucks because I like an old one better. You're utter failures unless you make a new edition that caters to me rather than those who like your game.

Same crap, different thread with petty, whiny 3tards spewing their crap rather than just playing the game they do like because everything should cater to them.




This is a perfect example of the hostility I mentioned earlier. I know the media of boards fosters this for various reason, but seriously, this is just bizarre to me. 4e is a game system. It's not your child. I got back on the forums to be part of a community and instead people are either really condescending or just out-right hostile. 







... Didn't you call someone who disagreed with you an Apologist a while back in a thread you created because he offered you some advice/mildly disagreed with you? And wouldn't that be considered both condescending AND out-right hostile.

Just saying....




And I DID mention that I was guilty myself. HOWEVER here is a BIG difference between calling someone an apologist (which is no deadly insult by any stretch of the imagination) and calling them a “3tard.” I can call someone an apologist in a civil debate because it is not what I would consider a personal insult. I am not disparaging their character or personality or lineage. 




And I DID mention that I was guilty myself. HOWEVER here is a BIG difference between calling someone an apologist (which is no deadly insult by any stretch of the imagination) and calling them a “3tard.” I can call someone an apologist in a civil debate because it is not what I would consider a personal insult. I am not disparaging their character or personality or lineage. 




So, because YOU don't consider it an insult, that makes it not so? How about the rest of your response to me that basically implies that I am inexperienced (because you have 40 years of knowledge) and that you must have better data than I that proves my disagreement void?

You sound like a complete WOTC apologist. I have been roleplaying for 40 years. I play in two 4th edition campaigns. I know a ton of gamers. The consensus of nearly all the people I talk to is that D&D 4th edition is the least roleplaying-friendly system around.



Nevermind that after people disagreed with you, you basically told everyone what they were posting was wrong and that you wanted to have a discussion on the strenghts and weakness of the system withought anyone being alowed to contradict you on why what you put in as a weakness isn't actually a weakness

Wow. I want a discussion, but about the topic. Not how to roleplay better or DM better. I want a discussion about the stengths and weakness of the system. Another post had a very different list than mine. I thought that was great.

Welcome to ZomboniLand - My D&D Blog http://zomboniland.blogspot.com/
Translated OP: Dear Designers and Marketers: Your game sucks because I like an old one better. You're utter failures unless you make a new edition that caters to me rather than those who like your game.

Same crap, different thread with petty, whiny 3tards spewing their crap rather than just playing the game they do like because everything should cater to them.




This is a perfect example of the hostility I mentioned earlier. I know the media of boards fosters this for various reason, but seriously, this is just bizarre to me. 4e is a game system. It's not your child. I got back on the forums to be part of a community and instead people are either really condescending or just out-right hostile. 







... Didn't you call someone who disagreed with you an Apologist a while back in a thread you created because he offered you some advice/mildly disagreed with you? And wouldn't that be considered both condescending AND out-right hostile.

Just saying....




And I DID mention that I was guilty myself. HOWEVER here is a BIG difference between calling someone an apologist (which is no deadly insult by any stretch of the imagination) and calling them a “3tard.” I can call someone an apologist in a civil debate because it is not what I would consider a personal insult. I am not disparaging their character or personality or lineage. 







It's good to know that you decide what is civil and what isn't on a does-this-offend-me-and-only-me basis. Heart warming really. I'm sorry am I being offensive to you? Well to me I'm not so therefore I'm not being offensive to anyone. Wheeeee!
"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