WOTC - Please don't listen to these forums

Everyone is so biased here, I can't see how in the world you will get objective threads about what you want.  And remember, most folks who like 1e, 2e, & 3/3.5e are not hanging out here. 


I read thread after thread of well intentioned original posts that are devolving right back into the edition wars back when 4e was rolled out.  The proponents of 4e, while forgetting there is a reason 5e is on the table, are just as anti previous edition as ever.  And that just prompts the same responses from the proponents of the previous editions.    


As such, I don't think you will be able to wade through it all.  My suggestion to you

1. Hire 1-2 player advisors who advocate each edition.

2. Make sure they all play nice, but each has a voice

3. Put out your beta edition

4. Then we can argue about the actual game play, instead of all this hypothetical stuff.

5. Edit and adjust as necessary until you have a game most of us can be proud to call Dungeons and Dragons.   

            
Everyone is so biased here, I can't see how in the world you will get objective threads about what you want.  And remember, most folks who like 1e, 2e, & 3/3.5e are not hanging out here. 


I read thread after thread of well intentioned original posts that are devolving right back into the edition wars back when 4e was rolled out.  The proponents of 4e, while forgetting there is a reason 5e is on the table, are just as anti previous edition as ever.  And that just prompts the same responses from the proponents of the previous editions.    


As such, I don't think you will be able to wade through it all.  My suggestion to you

1. Hire 1-2 player advisors who advocate each edition.

2. Make sure they all play nice, but each has a voice

3. Put out your beta edition

4. Then we can argue about the actual game play, instead of all this hypothetical stuff.

5. Edit and adjust as necessary until you have a game most of us can be proud to call Dungeons and Dragons.   

            




Then it's not "For the Players, By the Players", is it? They've set forward this marketing scheme, and now live or die by it. If they were to rescind this ideal, do you know how much more vindicated people will feel? 3.5/Pathfinder players will get 'See? Wizards really doesn't care about us?' and cling to Paizo harder. 4E players will continue to feel that WotC has no ability to listen and communicate, despite saying and promising otherwise, and railing against a wall for over a year now, only now we'll be justified. The Old Guard will... continue being Old Guard, I guess. They didn't want what WotC was selling in the first place, and certainly won't if they continue to ignore them.

If WotC chooses not to listen to the players, they crush D&D. If they want this modular "D&D Next" to work, for everyone, they have to sit down, and realize that beyond all of the vitriol of edition wars and "My Powers are better than your Vancian" silliness, that some of us give a crap, have put forth legitimate ideas, and aren't simply tacking ourselves to our edition and becoming immovable objects. We are putting forth the best of what we have seen. Some agree. Some don't. That's fine. Everyone should get what they want in due time.

But they have to listen now. They have to sift through the bile they've suggested they're going to take seriously, and that's great. It means we can force Wizards to listen. And to communicate.
Note that I said - pay attention to the players after the beta is released and we play.  Then, if they come out with something and it plays well, or poorly - we are vocal about THAT specific part.  WOTC changes it, we play test it ad infinitum until "most are good with it".  That is what should happen.  That is what happened with pathfinder.  This thing we got going on right now will just obfuscate the beta creation process and we'll never get it.  For every Rule and idea for every edition, there is a thought against it.  
I see where you are coming from, and I agree to an extent but it seems that once the word gets out there are others showing up to the party. 

I have read and participated in a few discussions where the sharing of information and points of view were civil and informative.

Admittedly I can only take so much negativity, but I realize to many this is the end of the game they have come to appreciate. Believe me I can relate to that.  

It migt be a good idea to seperate current ongoing 4e discussions and D&D next speculation from the same subforums though. I have seen a few players posts that were a little offfensive in their intolerance, ignorance, and hubris.

It's a good thing to get rid some of the baggage through discussion and to gain a little perspective. Eventually the users who want to help will hang around while others who are too narrow minded or angry will realize their impotence and give up. 

Just give it a little more time. I'm sure others will show up to add thier voices to the din.
It migt be a good idea to seperate current ongoing 4e discussions and D&D next speculation from the same subforums though. I have seen a few players posts that were a little offfensive in their intolerance, ignorance, and hubris.



This seems to suggest 4E players are the cause of this, and this is rather misleading. I've seen people from nearly every edition at this point act like jerks. It's unfortunate, but not really anything you can do. So long as there is discussion about "D&D Next", people will disagree, and people will get heated enough to treat each other poorly. Sad fact.

Note that I said - pay attention to the players after the beta is released and we play.  Then, if they come out with something and it plays well, or poorly - we are vocal about THAT specific part.  WOTC changes it, we play test it ad infinitum until "most are good with it".  That is what should happen.  That is what happened with pathfinder.  This thing we got going on right now will just obfuscate the beta creation process and we'll never get it.  For every Rule and idea for every edition, there is a thought against it.



That doesn't work. It worked for Pathfinder because they already had a set of core rules that players were familiar with. As much as Pathfinder did, it did post-core. Nothing Pathfinder did reinvented the wheel when it came to d20. Beta was more than enough. However, D&D Next is entirely new. It may have familiar elements, but at no point is Next intended to rehash rulesets (at least, many are hoping not. That'd really defeat the purpose). It has to be transparent for playtesters. At all stages. The fact that they're trickling out nothing but stupid little teasers in L&L isn't helping matters. They need to be more forthright, especially when many people are saying they've already touched early versions in December.

If they truly want it to be 'by the players', they have to accept that they can't play this little game, have a few 'core playtesters' to guide the system and then drop it off in our laps to math-fix it for them.

I see where you are coming from, and I agree to an extent but it seems that once the word gets out there are others showing up to the party. 

I have read and participated in a few discussions where the sharing of information and points of view were civil and informative.

Admittedly I can only take so much negativity, but I realize to many this is the end of the game they have come to appreciate. Believe me I can relate to that.  



Just give it a little more time. I'm sure others will show up to add thier voices to the din. 



I hope so Tlantl, but I fear most of the grognards like myself are less likely to show up...and I don't have the will to fight this battle again.  (I was a heavy advocate against many concepts of 4e when it came out but I was beaten back by 4e pro crowd and ultimately I left.  I rejoined later (thus my low post count) but have stayed silent. 


There are most assuredly civil posters from all editions!  I don't want to lump all posters into a bad category...but it seems to only take two posters (one pro and one con) of an idea to devolve the thread into chaos.  I tried reading the Charm Person thread and my head was near bursting with the vitriol there.  (I'm of the Charm Person is good ilk by the way - I think the DM should be ready against it if it's that much of a hassle)


  
It migt be a good idea to seperate current ongoing 4e discussions and D&D next speculation from the same subforums though. I have seen a few players posts that were a little offfensive in their intolerance, ignorance, and hubris.



This seems to suggest 4E players are the cause of this, and this is rather misleading. I've seen people from nearly every edition at this point act like jerks. It's unfortunate, but not really anything you can do. So long as there is discussion about "D&D Next", people will disagree, and people will get heated enough to treat each other poorly. Sad fact.




And thus my point - it is all much ado about nothing until we start seeing the beta.  At worst, we should be seeing WOTC based questionaires being gien to us where we answer what we like/don't like wish/don't wish in the next iteration...

Many lulz at the idea of opening a forum thread pleading WotC not to listen to the forum ...
I can certainly appreciate the sentiment. But ultimately if WOTC is to truly craft something that has a hope of appealing to as broad a spectrum of players as possible they need to understand what they are dealing with. Part of the way of doing that will be reviewing these boards. Are they uncivilized and vitriolic? Sure they are and it is very frustrating to deal with, but when people are passionate about something they tend to get aggressive about it and this is true of every edition. It's unfortunate, but it is the nature of the thing. There are a lot of excellent ideas and perspectives to be gleaned from these boards, but like anything else you have to look for them. I am an admitted grognard and I have had extremely interesting and insightful conversations about 4E on these boards that actually helped me appreciate elements of the edition I didn't previously. I think there is too much of value hidden on these boards to just dismiss them out of hand.
It migt be a good idea to seperate current ongoing 4e discussions and D&D next speculation from the same subforums though. I have seen a few players posts that were a little offfensive in their intolerance, ignorance, and hubris.



This seems to suggest 4E players are the cause of this, and this is rather misleading. I've seen people from nearly every edition at this point act like jerks. It's unfortunate, but not really anything you can do. So long as there is discussion about "D&D Next", people will disagree, and people will get heated enough to treat each other poorly. Sad fact.

Note that I said - pay attention to the players after the beta is released and we play.  Then, if they come out with something and it plays well, or poorly - we are vocal about THAT specific part.  WOTC changes it, we play test it ad infinitum until "most are good with it".  That is what should happen.  That is what happened with pathfinder.  This thing we got going on right now will just obfuscate the beta creation process and we'll never get it.  For every Rule and idea for every edition, there is a thought against it.



That doesn't work. It worked for Pathfinder because they already had a set of core rules that players were familiar with. As much as Pathfinder did, it did post-core. Nothing Pathfinder did reinvented the wheel when it came to d20. Beta was more than enough. However, D&D Next is entirely new. It may have familiar elements, but at no point is Next intended to rehash rulesets (at least, many are hoping not. That'd really defeat the purpose). It has to be transparent for playtesters. At all stages. The fact that they're trickling out nothing but stupid little teasers in L&L isn't helping matters. They need to be more forthright, especially when many people are saying they've already touched early versions in December.

If they truly want it to be 'by the players', they have to accept that they can't play this little game, have a few 'core playtesters' to guide the system and then drop it off in our laps to math-fix it for them.





Ya I was actually referring to a couple of incidents I stumbled into.

I didn't mean to say the 4e crowd was solely responsible. I meant that since they were here first, as the current active community, there is going to be inadvertant comingling that could ultimately become a problem.
I see where you are coming from, and I agree to an extent but it seems that once the word gets out there are others showing up to the party. 

I have read and participated in a few discussions where the sharing of information and points of view were civil and informative.

Admittedly I can only take so much negativity, but I realize to many this is the end of the game they have come to appreciate. Believe me I can relate to that.  



Just give it a little more time. I'm sure others will show up to add thier voices to the din. 



I hope so Tlantl, but I fear most of the grognards like myself are less likely to show up...and I don't have the will to fight this battle again.  (I was a heavy advocate against many concepts of 4e when it came out but I was beaten back by 4e pro crowd and ultimately I left.  I rejoined later (thus my low post count) but have stayed silent. 


There are most assuredly civil posters from all editions!  I don't want to lump all posters into a bad category...but it seems to only take two posters (one pro and one con) of an idea to devolve the thread into chaos.  I tried reading the Charm Person thread and my head was near bursting with the vitriol there.  (I'm of the Charm Person is good ilk by the way - I think the DM should be ready against it if it's that much of a hassle)


  



Actually, it seems like the old edition advocates have at least close to the numbers of the 4e supporters in this subforum.
I would say that if there was any one lesson Wotc can and should learn from this forum, it's the general futility of trying to make one game that will please (or even satisfy) all of us.


-Polaris
It's not entirely people yelling at each other over old systems. There's a healthy community of us yelling at each other about systems that don't even exist yet! Tongue Out

Really though, once you're here for a little while, you start being able to quickly identify the threads that will have interesting discussions and the ones that will devolve into pro-skub/anti-skub flamewars. And the former category does exist! We've had fascinating discussions about magic items, different possible resource mechanics, the definition of various classes, and so on.
Rhymes with Bruce
I'm trying my best to be as open minded and civil as possible.  While 4e is my current system of choice, I do still have all my AD&D and 3/3.5 books on the shelf and they sometimes come down when I want to bring in something that hadn't been translated to 4e yet.   I even recently picked up the Pathfinder beginners box to see what that was all about (and really liking some aspects of it already).

I just really hate it when people say some things about 4e (in particular anything along the lines of "4e removed roleplaying", mainly because it just makes me scratch my head and think "then what the hell have I been doing these past 5 years?". I have a pretty thick skin, but having to explain it over and over again has worn on me, I had to do the same thing when 3e came out and people said similar things.   

Even then I'm trying to at least keep the conversation civil.

There are a few things I wouldn't mind seeing come back in the future edition - even Vanican spellcasting which from my experience even some grognards aren't to fond of (or else my group would never had started using a magic point system back in the 90s).

I think alot of it is choice of words - when someone says "You couldn't do X in # edition", the immediate reaction of people who played that game and that feel otherwise is to respond with how they did do X.  It's stated like a "fact" rather than an opinion. 

And I get caught up in it too - I forget myself sometimes in how I word things
Welcome to ZomboniLand - My D&D Blog http://zomboniland.blogspot.com/
I somehow doubt wizards is foolish enough to listen to unfiltered, distilled forums bitterness and take it as gospel.  Very likley, if they read these forums at all, they've got a couple people combing through what is said here looking for good ideas.  If they were really sneaky, they might have a poster or two making "suggestions" that fall in line with the current 5e draft to gague the reaction to a few things they aren't sure about.

"Enjoy your screams, Sarpadia - they will soon be muffled beneath snow and ice."

 

Follow me to No Goblins Allowed

A M:tG/D&D message board with a good community and usable software

 


THE COALITION WAR GAME -Phyrexian Chief Praetor
Round 1: (4-1-2, 1 kill)
Round 2: (16-8-2, 4 kills)
Round 3: (18-9-2, 1 kill)
Round 4: (22-10-0, 2 kills)
Round 5: (56-16-3, 9 kills)
Round 6: (8-7-1)

Last Edited by Ralph on blank, 1920

I see where you are coming from, and I agree to an extent but it seems that once the word gets out there are others showing up to the party. 

I have read and participated in a few discussions where the sharing of information and points of view were civil and informative.

Admittedly I can only take so much negativity, but I realize to many this is the end of the game they have come to appreciate. Believe me I can relate to that. 

I have seen a few players posts that were a little offfensive in their intolerance, ignorance, and hubris.

.



youre a hypocrite. how you can post that with a straight face is beyond me. heres you threadcrapping on 4e for no reason in a thread about 4e releases

I fail to see what a 4e release has to do with 5e speculations and discussion.

Esoteric subjects like this have litte bearing on the larger discussion concerning what neesd to change in the new edition to bring back old players who abandoned D&D because of bad design choices and rules changes.

Remember 4e is a fail and it's time to move on. 

That picture is pretty though. 



community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/758...


tell me the one about intolerance again? Undecided
WotC is staffed by people smart enough to know the signal-to-noise ratio on a forum like this is pretty uneven. And should recognise that, since the 5e announcement just came out, the people on this message board will still likely be strong 4e proponents and 4e haters looking for a flame fight.

Things will get better when the beta rules are released and the 4e fans see they're not nerfing fighters into irrelevance or removing balance. When everyone sees what's being done and can start providing focused, constructive feedback it will get a little better.  

5 Minute WorkdayMy Webcomic Updated Tue & Thur

The compilation of my Worldbuilding blog series is now available: 

Jester David's How-To Guide to Fantasy Worldbuilding.

Yes and I was shown the errors of my ways and was humbled. 

I never said I wasn't going to express my distaste for 4e and if by some miricle I come to see the merits in some of it's systems I will be man enought to admit it. 

I don't as a rule try to start a war for the sake of starting wars, but if I think something needs saying I might not think things through as I should.

 
I disagree to the core of your thought! I am up for open resources and open procedures. I would really prefer to give the voice to the ppl than the company make something because their advisors said it would sell better.  
D&D is a game for the players and not for the developers or the market.
Are there problems in these threads? Hell yes! But who said that open procedures is without problems? Is it better to be done only by "elitistic game designers"? Way no! 
It's their job to decipher our rumblings, to converse -at last- with us and most of all to respect us. It's our job to provide them all this info. Our responsibilty comes together with the freedom that they give us to support em. If they succeed we have succeeded. If not we have failed. 
Maybe the things i am saying are too ideal, but if there is a possibility to be true to their announcements then i think we should give it a shot.
I somehow doubt wizards is foolish enough to listen to unfiltered, distilled forums bitterness and take it as gospel.  Very likley, if they read these forums at all, they've got a couple people combing through what is said here looking for good ideas.  If they were really sneaky, they might have a poster or two making "suggestions" that fall in line with the current 5e draft to gague the reaction to a few things they aren't sure about.



This, simply put it is doubtful they will actually gather much from the people here.  More likely they will take stuff from the actual playtests, various polls conducted, not a bunch of yahoos (me included) on the messageboard.  When you want information for satistics you don't ask people to come to you, you go to them this is one of the first rules of information gathering.
I would say that if there was any one lesson Wotc can and should learn from this forum, it's the general futility of trying to make one game that will please (or even satisfy) all of us.


-Polaris



Agreed 100%.  Honestly, the idea that they're trying to cater to all of us at the same time worries me greatly.  Cuz it's destined to fail.  They need to come up with something very new. 
Resident Prophet of the OTTer.

Section Six Soldier

Front Door of the House of Trolls

[b]If you're terribly afraid of your character dying, it may be best if you roleplayed something other than an adventurer.[/b]

I would say that if there was any one lesson Wotc can and should learn from this forum, it's the general futility of trying to make one game that will please (or even satisfy) all of us.


-Polaris



Agreed 100%.  Honestly, the idea that they're trying to cater to all of us at the same time worries me greatly.  Cuz it's destined to fail.  They need to come up with something very new. 



I have concur with this part. As much as I think they need to listen to all souces of input I can't argue with this train of thought, as I said in another thread earlier...

We spend so much time defensively defending our  way of playing or preferred edition as the one true game we have become virtually unable to accept any differing viewpoints. This makes the stated goal of the new edition-- reunification of the splintered base-- virtually impossible. Not because of any mechanical issue, but because too many of us simply do not want it. We want to be right more than we want to cooperate with one another. Even if the game is a vastly superior product we'll resist it because it's not what we thought was right and we might have to admit there are other ways of doing things.

I hate sounding so jaded about it, but that seems to be a fairly accurate view of a lot of what is seen on the boards.
Sign In to post comments