+/- comments pattern?

I have noticed something of a pattern in many (but certainly not all) of the playtest comments that involve any degree of mention of other editions.


  • Many who voice a negative comment about 4e pair it with a positive comment about Next.

  • Many who voice a positive comment about 4e pair it with a negative comment about Next.

  • Few who voice a negative comment about pre-4e voice a positive comment about Next.

  • Many who voice a positive comment about pre-4e voice a positive comment about Next.


Does this pattern imply that Next (as it currently stands) is more likely to change the splintered fanbase ratios, returning a portion of the old guard (pre-4e fans) but losing most of the new (4e fans)? If so, then the business question becomes this:

Will Next bring back into the paying fold more old guard customers than the number of 4e currently paying customers it alienates?
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 agree.

D&D N is very similar to older versions of D&D, and applies to fans of those, while 4e is very different from those older versions. Neither D&DN or 4e are much like 3.x (except for the complexity 3e and 4e share), so I doubt this will bring back Pathfinder fans. (I wonder if there's any PF fans on this forum.)

WotC is trying to "have it all" with D&DN, having something that appeals to a permanently splintered fanbase while also being balanced. Just picture the arguments over daily healing. Some fans will never accept that, and others will never play a game with restrictions on that. (I'm part of the latter camp.) I don't think it's possible to "heal" that split. WotC should pick one camp and satisfy it. If D&DN decided to go "old school only", I wouldn't buy it, but it would make a lot of fans happy and willing to pay for it.
The old edition-war argument "This is not D&D!" might just be proven true about 4e if the splinter continues to grow.  Ignoring all the little arguments over specific rules, I think the biggest rift is simply on the current design intent of D&DN.  

4E was a very well-defined game.  Here are exactly the actions that actions you can take and here is exactly how everything works.  Everyone has cool stuff to do all the time.

D&DN is starting off as a not-so-defined game.  Here are the basic rules.  Make everything else up. 

What I'll find interesting is what happens after 3 years of splat books (you know they'll be there).  Eventually, all the defined rules and special features 4e people like will be in an official book.  When that happens, will we finally all be able to say we play the same game, albeit with different options?
That would depend on core assumptions, specifically just how many rules are left in the core book. If WotC took out the "healing all hp/day" mechanics, for instance, to avoid offending old school fans, would they add it in an "advanced" book? Then you might end up with a 4e/Essentials-style split, but worse, since you can't have "basic" and "advanced" PCs in the same campaign. Same thing for DM power books, grids, etc.

Someone who wants to join a D&D N group would then have to ask "which rules are you using?" Or they might say "I refuse to play in a [basic/advanced] game!"
Personally I'm a fan of 4e (and I like 3.5, though much prefer 4th). I haven't yet had to playtest it since my friends are all being lame, but from glancing over it the issue seems to be that they're basically kicking 4th edition fans in the teeth. Like, change is good, if I wanted a retread of 4e, I'd just play 4e. However, 4e made some major steps forward in improving the game, and next so far seems to be retreating back into the safety of tradition.

Healing surges were one of the best things for the game, they were efficient, simple, mitigated the need for a healbot, and  limited character healing, preventing the "bag of potions" issue." Now we have hit dice which are basically the same thing, except unecessarily convoluted all for the sake of presenting a facade of familiarity to the people who refused to give 4e a fair shake.

And the action economy was brilliant. Move standard five foot step was pretty  legit, but immediate and swift actions were a bit murky. I mean, they made perfect sense, but they could have been implemented more cleanly. 4e did that, with standard move minor immediate opportunity. No mess, just clean simple rules. Next seems to take simplicity too far, reducing you to moving and taking one generic "action." While they seem to have preserved some immediate actions, there seems to be a lot less managing of actions in combat, just point and click.

 Further, the fighter has been once again reduced to being boring. While this is supposedly going to be fixed in later releases, we can only really judge what we have now, plus we were also promised a virtual tabletop, so yeah.

TLDR: I don't want another 4e, but I want the game to move forwards, not backwards. 

Zammm = Batman.

It's my sig in a box
58280208 wrote:
Everything is better when you read it in Bane's voice.
192334281 wrote:
Your human antics and desire to continue living have moved me. Just kidding. You cannot move me physically or emotionally. Wall humor.
57092228 wrote:
Copy effects work like a photocopy machine: you get a copy of the 'naked' card, NOT of what's on it.
56995928 wrote:
Funny story: InQuest Magazine (I think it was InQuest) had an oversized Chaos Orb which I totally rooked someone into allowing into a (non-sanctioned) game. I had a proxy card that was a Mountain with "Chaos Orb" written on it. When I played it, my opponent cried foul: Him: "WTF? a Proxy? no-one said anything about Proxies. Do you even own an actual Chaos Orb?" Me: "Yes, but I thought it would be better to use a Proxy." Him: "No way. If you're going to put a Chaos Orb in your deck you have to use your actual Chaos Orb." Me: "*Sigh*. Okay." I pulled out this huge Chaos Orb and placed it on the table. He tried to cry foul again but everyone else said he insisted I use my actual Chaos Orb and that was my actual Chaos Orb. I used it, flipped it and wiped most of his board. Unsurprisingly, that only worked once and only because everyone present thought it was hilarious.
My DM on Battleminds:
no, see i can kill defenders, but 8 consecutive crits on a battlemind, eh walk it off.
144543765 wrote:
195392035 wrote:
Hi guys! So, I'm a sort of returning player to Magic. I say sort of because as a child I had two main TCG's I liked. Yu-Gi-Oh, and Pokemon. Some of my friends branched off in to Magic, and I bought two pre-made decks just to kind of fit in. Like I said, Yu-Gi-Oh and Pokemon were what I really knew how to play. I have a extensive knowledge of deck building in those two TCG's. However, as far as Magic is concerned, I only ever used those two pre made decks. I know how the game is played, and I know general things, but now I want to get in the game for real. I want to begin playing it as a regular. My question is, are all cards ever released from the time of the inception of this game until present day fair game in a deck? Or are there special rules? Are some cards forbidden or restricted? Thanks guys, and I will gladly accept ANY help lol.
I have the same problem with women.
117639611 wrote:
198869283 wrote:
Oh I have a standing rule. If someone plays a Planeswalker I concede the game. I refuse to play with or against people who play Planeswalkers. They really did ruin the game.
A turn two Tibalt win?! Wicked... Betcha don't see that everyday.

The Pony Co. 

Is this my new ego sig? Yes it is, other Barry
57461258 wrote:
And that's why you should never, ever call RP Jesus on being a troll, because then everyone else playing along gets outed, too, and the thread goes back to being boring.
57461258 wrote:
See, this is why RPJesus should be in charge of the storyline. The novel line would never have been cancelled if he had been running the show. Specifically the Slobad and Geth's Head talkshow he just described.
57461258 wrote:
Not only was that an obligatory joke, it was an on-topic post that still managed to be off-topic due to thread derailment. RP Jesus does it again folks.
92481331 wrote:
I think I'm gonna' start praying to Jesus... That's right, RPJesus, I'm gonna' be praying to you, right now. O' Jesus Please continue to make my time here on the forums fun and cause me to chuckle. Amen.
92481331 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
It was wonderful. Us Johnnies had a field day. That Timmy with the Grizzly bears would actually have to think about swinging into your Mogg Fanatic, giving you time to set up your silly combo. Nowadays it's all DERPSWING! with thier blue jeans and their MP3 players and their EM EM OH AR PEE JEES and their "Dewmocracy" and their children's card games and their Jersey Shores and their Tattooed Tenaged Vampire Hunters from Beverly Hills
Seriously, that was amazing. I laughed my *ss off. Made my day, and I just woke up.
[quote=ArtVenn You're still one of my favorite people... just sayin'.[/quote]
56756068 wrote:
56786788 wrote:
.....would it be a bit blasphemous if I said, "PRAYSE RPJAYSUS!" like an Evangelical preacher?
Perhaps, but who doesn't like to blaspheme every now and again? Especially when Mr. RPJesus is completely right.
56756068 wrote:
I don't say this often, but ... LOL
57526128 wrote:
You... You... Evil something... I actualy made the damn char once I saw the poster... Now you made me see it again and I gained resolve to put it into my campaign. Shell be high standing oficial of Cyrix order. Uterly mad and only slightly evil. And it'll be bad. Evil even. And ill blame you and Lizard for it :P.
57042968 wrote:
111809331 wrote:
I'm trying to work out if you're being sarcastic here. ...
Am going to stop you right there... it's RPJesus... he's always sarcastic
58335208 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
112114441 wrote:
we can only hope it gets the jace treatment...it could have at least been legendary
So that even the decks that don't run it run it to deal with it? Isn't that like the definition of format warping?
I lol'd.
56287226 wrote:
98088088 wrote:
Uktabi Orangutan What the heck's going on with those monkeys?
The most common answer is that they are what RPJesus would call "[Debutantes avert your eyes]ing."
56965458 wrote:
Show
57461258 wrote:
116498949 wrote:
I’ve removed content from this thread because off-topic discussions are a violation of the Code of Conduct. You can review the Code here: www.wizards.com/Company/About.aspx?x=wz_... Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks. You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively. If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the “Report Post” button above the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
...Am I the only one that thinks this is reaching the point of downright Kafkaesque insanity?
I condone the use of the word Kafkaesque. However, I'm presentely ambivalent. I mean, that can't be serious, right? We're April 1st, right? They didn't mod RPJesus for off-topic discussion when the WHOLE THREAD IS OFF-TOPIC, right? Right.
57545908 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
Save or die. If you disagree with this, you're wrong (Not because of any points or arguements that have been made, but I just rolled a d20 for you and got a 1, so you lose).
58397368 wrote:
58222628 wrote:
This just won the argument, AFAIC.
That's just awesome.
57471038 wrote:
57718868 wrote:
HOW DID I NOT KNOW ABOUT THE BEAR PRODUCING WORDS OF WILDING?! WHAT IS WRONG WITH ME?!
That's what RPJesus tends to do. That's why I don't think he's a real person, but some Magic Card Archive Server sort of machine, that is programmed to react to other posters' comments with obscure cards that do in fact exist, but somehow missed by even the most experienced Magic players. And then come up with strange combos with said cards. All of that is impossible for a normal human to do given the amount of time he does it and how often he does it. He/It got me with Light of Sanction, which prompted me to go to RQ&A to try and find if it was even possible to do combat damage to a creature I control (in light that Mark of Asylum exists).
71235715 wrote:
+10
100176878 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
57078538 wrote:
heaven or hell.
Round 1. Lets rock.
GG quotes! RPJesus just made this thread win!
56906968 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
143359585 wrote:
Blue players get all the overpowerered cards like JTMS. I think it's time that wizards gave something to people who remember what magic is really about: creatures.
Initially yes, Wizards was married to blue. However, about a decade ago they had a nasty divorce, and a few years after that they began courting the attention of Green. Then in Worldwake they had a nasty affair with their ex, but as of Innistrad, things seem to have gotten back on track, and Wizards has even proposed.
You are my favorite. Yes you. And moments like this make it so. Thank you RPJesus for just being you.
On what flavor text fits me:
57307308 wrote:
Surely RPJesus gets Niv-Mizzet, Dracogenius?
56874518 wrote:
First: I STILL can't take you seriously with that avatar. And I can take RPJesus seriously, so that's saying something.
121689989 wrote:
I'd offer you a cookie for making me laugh but it has an Upkeep Cost that has been known to cause people to quit eating.
56267956 wrote:
I <3 you loads
57400888 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
"AINT NO LAWS IN THE SKY MOTHER****." - Agrus Kos, Wojek Veteran
10/10. Amazing.
That would depend on core assumptions, specifically just how many rules are left in the core book. If WotC took out the "healing all hp/day" mechanics, for instance, to avoid offending old school fans, would they add it in an "advanced" book? Then you might end up with a 4e/Essentials-style split, but worse, since you can't have "basic" and "advanced" PCs in the same campaign. Same thing for DM power books, grids, etc.

Someone who wants to join a D&D N group would then have to ask "which rules are you using?" Or they might say "I refuse to play in a [basic/advanced] game!"





Isnt that what 5e is supossed to represent? Why cant I sit down with the Fighter as written right now, with a fighter that has taken power options? This is what WotC has stated repeatedly as thier desighn goal.
Always excuse the spelling, and personal opinions are just that personal and opinions. Getting Down with the playtesting of 5th http://community.wizards.com/dndnext/go/thread/view/75882/29139253/Complilation_of_Playtest_Feedback Compilation of Feedback post /bump please
I hope the playtest cause the community to come out stronger and more unified.

I am very excited about D&D Next and the great Playtest opportunity that WoTC has given us and this allows us to discuss about it, say what we like and dislike, what it remind us of etc...

Within the last 40 years, this process took place only among a few select people behind closed doors, away from public eyes.  For the first time, the public is given the chance to see the evolution of an edition of D&D in developpement. Even more exciting, we are allowed to actually participate and voice feedbacks and see changes implemented! 

And the final product should be something that everyone hopefully find something they enjoy in, to some extent....

Yan
Montréal, Canada
@Plaguescarred on twitter

Isnt that what 5e is supossed to represent? Why cant I sit down with the Fighter as written right now, with a fighter that has taken power options? This is what WotC has stated repeatedly as thier desighn goal.



I don't have a 100% understanding of what WotC wants to accomplish. Neither does WotC for that matter. But I suspect they wnat to make it possible for group A to have a "simple" game and group B to have a "complex" game (with many modules, minimaps, and so forth).

However, a game where Fred the dwarf fighter is using minimalist rules (note that the playtest document specifically says you can leave out background and theme for a more "old school" flavor) and Geoff the dwarf fighter is using the two theme package* (Slayer and Guardian) and you're going to notice a huge difference between the characters. One is probably more interesting to play, although that's heavily player-dependent as well. One is definitely more powerful. One is more useful to the party. And all of them can do cool things like set their beer on fire to roast kobolds (that's more player-dependent than rules-dependent).

I don't think it's a good idea to have that kind of thing in the same game.

*A proposed rules change or module. And yes, I know the product isn't complete, and there's no guarantee either will be available, but I'd rather use something that half-exists than make up a completely ridiculous example just to "win" a conversation.
Isnt that what 5e is supossed to represent? Why cant I sit down with the Fighter as written right now, with a fighter that has taken power options? This is what WotC has stated repeatedly as thier desighn goal.



I don't have a 100% understanding of what WotC wants to accomplish. Neither does WotC for that matter. But I suspect they wnat to make it possible for group A to have a "simple" game and group B to have a "complex" game (with many modules, minimaps, and so forth).

However, a game where Fred the dwarf fighter is using minimalist rules (note that the playtest document specifically says you can leave out background and theme for a more "old school" flavor) and Geoff the dwarf fighter is using the two theme package* (Slayer and Guardian) and you're going to notice a huge difference between the characters. One is probably more interesting to play, although that's heavily player-dependent as well. One is definitely more powerful. One is more useful to the party. And all of them can do cool things like set their beer on fire to roast kobolds (that's more player-dependent than rules-dependent).

I don't think it's a good idea to have that kind of thing in the same game.

*A proposed rules change or module. And yes, I know the product isn't complete, and there's no guarantee either will be available, but I'd rather use something that half-exists than make up a completely ridiculous example just to "win" a conversation.



How is one more powerful or more useful to the party? The simple version can still do anything the powered version can do, using checks and/or contests.

The answer to this is simple.  Reprint all old editions, repackaged to describe what they do and are. 

OAD&D: D&D Classic: Faithfully reprinted, maybe iwth a couple time tested changes that are good ideas, but mostly, There you go.  Publish one supplement of the Rules Cyclopedia, with just the expanded rules.
AD&D: D&D: Advanced - 1st and 2nd re-packaged as a super omnibus of options to add to 1e. 
D&D 3.5: D&D: Nexus Edition - Since 3.5 modules are still everywhere and Pathfinder would be compatible.  Include the 3.5 Unearthed Arcana in the reprints for expanded options.  All worlds combine here.

D&D Essentials: D&D Action Heroes - since this is 4e light basically, follow the same progression of the previously listed editions.  the starter set concept.  With higher hit points and being harder to die overall, this more version is inherently more heroic.
D&D 4e: D&D Heroes of Power - Basically 4e would be Essentials, but with expanded options.
 
D&D 5e: Concordance Edition - Hybrid rules set for mixing and matching, as you are pursuing now.  The ultra mega mega edition. 

Reprint and support ALL these.  How many people would purchase re-purposed versions of their favorite?   Add to this a quarterly publication for each that combines the best player-submitted ideas for each edition, presented as options for that version. 

There's your universal appeal.  Your ideas of what you think we want in our game can be the D&D Concordance Edition as your pet project there.  You can "iterate" with that to your hearts content.  Then there's no one "current" edition, and all editions live.  Everyone wins. 

How is one more powerful or more useful to the party? The simple version can still do anything the powered version can do, using checks and/or contests.



One of them has two themes and a background while the other does not.  Each of these things confers mechanical power.  Therefore, the one with them is more powerful.  A more powerful party member is more useful.

Why are we talking in bold?
Seriously, though, you should check out the PbP Haven. You might also like Real Adventures, IF you're cool.
Knights of W.T.F.- Silver Spur Winner
4enclave, a place where 4e fans can talk 4e in peace.
There's your universal appeal.  Your ideas of what you think we want in our game can be the D&D Concordance Edition as your pet project there.  You can "iterate" with that to your hearts content.  Then there's no one "current" edition, and all editions live.  Everyone wins. 




I would love to see Spelljammer and Planescape back and supported again.

Member of the Axis of Awesome

Show
Homogenising: Making vanilla in 31 different colours
I agree.

D&D N is very similar to older versions of D&D, and applies to fans of those, while 4e is very different from those older versions. Neither D&DN or 4e are much like 3.x (except for the complexity 3e and 4e share), so I doubt this will bring back Pathfinder fans. (I wonder if there's any PF fans on this forum.)



Yes, at least one.  Me.
Right now I'm in 2 ongoing games.  I like PF all right.  It has all the same things that I didn't like about 3x (heavy reliance upon the minis, a skill system based upon class instead of Int, monster/NPC stat blocks that are pointlessly complex, heavy reliance upon feats) - but what would you expect?  It's pretty much the same thing, just from a different publisher 


My
favorite edition of D&D is still AD&D1e.   
Well, I appreciate your point that at this stage in the playtest the comments seem much as you have outlined, in broad strokes of course. But we seem to be talking as if Next was already complete--and it is not. In fact is has only gone through the barest of playtests at this point, and the mere first public playtest release. Next will go through many, many changes and additions before we can consider the game "finished" or "complete". Thus it is a bit early in the game to make the assumption you make, or question you pose. Will enough old schoolers borught back into the game equal or exceed the number of 4e players you assume will leave. I think the question is a bit presumptious and obviously slanted against the game as it stands now. Because such a question might not even deserve to be asked when the game is in a more complete state, and many more 4e rules are brought back into the game.
"The worthy GM never purposely kills players' PCs. He presents opportunities for the rash and unthinking players to do that all on their own." --Gary Gygax
How is one more powerful or more useful to the party? The simple version can still do anything the powered version can do, using checks and/or contests.



One of them has two themes and a background while the other does not.  Each of these things confers mechanical power.  Therefore, the one with them is more powerful.  A more powerful party member is more useful.

Why are we talking in bold?



True, but if Bob the simple fighter is complaining about Jimmy the complex fighter being more complex, he can just roll himself up a complex fighter.

Zammm = Batman.

It's my sig in a box
58280208 wrote:
Everything is better when you read it in Bane's voice.
192334281 wrote:
Your human antics and desire to continue living have moved me. Just kidding. You cannot move me physically or emotionally. Wall humor.
57092228 wrote:
Copy effects work like a photocopy machine: you get a copy of the 'naked' card, NOT of what's on it.
56995928 wrote:
Funny story: InQuest Magazine (I think it was InQuest) had an oversized Chaos Orb which I totally rooked someone into allowing into a (non-sanctioned) game. I had a proxy card that was a Mountain with "Chaos Orb" written on it. When I played it, my opponent cried foul: Him: "WTF? a Proxy? no-one said anything about Proxies. Do you even own an actual Chaos Orb?" Me: "Yes, but I thought it would be better to use a Proxy." Him: "No way. If you're going to put a Chaos Orb in your deck you have to use your actual Chaos Orb." Me: "*Sigh*. Okay." I pulled out this huge Chaos Orb and placed it on the table. He tried to cry foul again but everyone else said he insisted I use my actual Chaos Orb and that was my actual Chaos Orb. I used it, flipped it and wiped most of his board. Unsurprisingly, that only worked once and only because everyone present thought it was hilarious.
My DM on Battleminds:
no, see i can kill defenders, but 8 consecutive crits on a battlemind, eh walk it off.
144543765 wrote:
195392035 wrote:
Hi guys! So, I'm a sort of returning player to Magic. I say sort of because as a child I had two main TCG's I liked. Yu-Gi-Oh, and Pokemon. Some of my friends branched off in to Magic, and I bought two pre-made decks just to kind of fit in. Like I said, Yu-Gi-Oh and Pokemon were what I really knew how to play. I have a extensive knowledge of deck building in those two TCG's. However, as far as Magic is concerned, I only ever used those two pre made decks. I know how the game is played, and I know general things, but now I want to get in the game for real. I want to begin playing it as a regular. My question is, are all cards ever released from the time of the inception of this game until present day fair game in a deck? Or are there special rules? Are some cards forbidden or restricted? Thanks guys, and I will gladly accept ANY help lol.
I have the same problem with women.
117639611 wrote:
198869283 wrote:
Oh I have a standing rule. If someone plays a Planeswalker I concede the game. I refuse to play with or against people who play Planeswalkers. They really did ruin the game.
A turn two Tibalt win?! Wicked... Betcha don't see that everyday.

The Pony Co. 

Is this my new ego sig? Yes it is, other Barry
57461258 wrote:
And that's why you should never, ever call RP Jesus on being a troll, because then everyone else playing along gets outed, too, and the thread goes back to being boring.
57461258 wrote:
See, this is why RPJesus should be in charge of the storyline. The novel line would never have been cancelled if he had been running the show. Specifically the Slobad and Geth's Head talkshow he just described.
57461258 wrote:
Not only was that an obligatory joke, it was an on-topic post that still managed to be off-topic due to thread derailment. RP Jesus does it again folks.
92481331 wrote:
I think I'm gonna' start praying to Jesus... That's right, RPJesus, I'm gonna' be praying to you, right now. O' Jesus Please continue to make my time here on the forums fun and cause me to chuckle. Amen.
92481331 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
It was wonderful. Us Johnnies had a field day. That Timmy with the Grizzly bears would actually have to think about swinging into your Mogg Fanatic, giving you time to set up your silly combo. Nowadays it's all DERPSWING! with thier blue jeans and their MP3 players and their EM EM OH AR PEE JEES and their "Dewmocracy" and their children's card games and their Jersey Shores and their Tattooed Tenaged Vampire Hunters from Beverly Hills
Seriously, that was amazing. I laughed my *ss off. Made my day, and I just woke up.
[quote=ArtVenn You're still one of my favorite people... just sayin'.[/quote]
56756068 wrote:
56786788 wrote:
.....would it be a bit blasphemous if I said, "PRAYSE RPJAYSUS!" like an Evangelical preacher?
Perhaps, but who doesn't like to blaspheme every now and again? Especially when Mr. RPJesus is completely right.
56756068 wrote:
I don't say this often, but ... LOL
57526128 wrote:
You... You... Evil something... I actualy made the damn char once I saw the poster... Now you made me see it again and I gained resolve to put it into my campaign. Shell be high standing oficial of Cyrix order. Uterly mad and only slightly evil. And it'll be bad. Evil even. And ill blame you and Lizard for it :P.
57042968 wrote:
111809331 wrote:
I'm trying to work out if you're being sarcastic here. ...
Am going to stop you right there... it's RPJesus... he's always sarcastic
58335208 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
112114441 wrote:
we can only hope it gets the jace treatment...it could have at least been legendary
So that even the decks that don't run it run it to deal with it? Isn't that like the definition of format warping?
I lol'd.
56287226 wrote:
98088088 wrote:
Uktabi Orangutan What the heck's going on with those monkeys?
The most common answer is that they are what RPJesus would call "[Debutantes avert your eyes]ing."
56965458 wrote:
Show
57461258 wrote:
116498949 wrote:
I’ve removed content from this thread because off-topic discussions are a violation of the Code of Conduct. You can review the Code here: www.wizards.com/Company/About.aspx?x=wz_... Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks. You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively. If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the “Report Post” button above the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
...Am I the only one that thinks this is reaching the point of downright Kafkaesque insanity?
I condone the use of the word Kafkaesque. However, I'm presentely ambivalent. I mean, that can't be serious, right? We're April 1st, right? They didn't mod RPJesus for off-topic discussion when the WHOLE THREAD IS OFF-TOPIC, right? Right.
57545908 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
Save or die. If you disagree with this, you're wrong (Not because of any points or arguements that have been made, but I just rolled a d20 for you and got a 1, so you lose).
58397368 wrote:
58222628 wrote:
This just won the argument, AFAIC.
That's just awesome.
57471038 wrote:
57718868 wrote:
HOW DID I NOT KNOW ABOUT THE BEAR PRODUCING WORDS OF WILDING?! WHAT IS WRONG WITH ME?!
That's what RPJesus tends to do. That's why I don't think he's a real person, but some Magic Card Archive Server sort of machine, that is programmed to react to other posters' comments with obscure cards that do in fact exist, but somehow missed by even the most experienced Magic players. And then come up with strange combos with said cards. All of that is impossible for a normal human to do given the amount of time he does it and how often he does it. He/It got me with Light of Sanction, which prompted me to go to RQ&A to try and find if it was even possible to do combat damage to a creature I control (in light that Mark of Asylum exists).
71235715 wrote:
+10
100176878 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
57078538 wrote:
heaven or hell.
Round 1. Lets rock.
GG quotes! RPJesus just made this thread win!
56906968 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
143359585 wrote:
Blue players get all the overpowerered cards like JTMS. I think it's time that wizards gave something to people who remember what magic is really about: creatures.
Initially yes, Wizards was married to blue. However, about a decade ago they had a nasty divorce, and a few years after that they began courting the attention of Green. Then in Worldwake they had a nasty affair with their ex, but as of Innistrad, things seem to have gotten back on track, and Wizards has even proposed.
You are my favorite. Yes you. And moments like this make it so. Thank you RPJesus for just being you.
On what flavor text fits me:
57307308 wrote:
Surely RPJesus gets Niv-Mizzet, Dracogenius?
56874518 wrote:
First: I STILL can't take you seriously with that avatar. And I can take RPJesus seriously, so that's saying something.
121689989 wrote:
I'd offer you a cookie for making me laugh but it has an Upkeep Cost that has been known to cause people to quit eating.
56267956 wrote:
I <3 you loads
57400888 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
"AINT NO LAWS IN THE SKY MOTHER****." - Agrus Kos, Wojek Veteran
10/10. Amazing.
Part of what they're doing right now is some PR work. The thing is that 4e players are used to being up-to-date with things, so WotC can expect them to at least check out what they make. They need this very first playtest to appeal to the old-schoolers though, or they risk having lots of old-schoolers look at it, dismiss it, and return to their old games without ever taking a look at the finished product and realizing it does indeed appeal to them.
"So shall it be! Dear-bought those songs shall be be accounted, and yet shall be well-bought. For the price could be no other. Thus even as Eru spoke to us shall beauty not before conceived be brought into Eä, and evil yet be good to have been." - Manwë, High King of the Valar
It would make sense to try and win back the old fans and try and gain some pathfinder fans. 4e will still be played and most likely supported so it's a win-win for Wizards.
Part of what they're doing right now is some PR work. The thing is that 4e players are used to being up-to-date with things, so WotC can expect them to at least check out what they make. They need this very first playtest to appeal to the old-schoolers though, or they risk having lots of old-schoolers look at it, dismiss it, and return to their old games without ever taking a look at the finished product and realizing it does indeed appeal to them.



I agree with this, and have assumed as much myself. A few early naysayers were displeased that the first release was a sort of old school model. They wanted a 4e base and remove things you didn't want. It truly could have gone either way. Tho' it seems simpler to go about it this way. Truthfully though, the first hard sell is to old schoolers. The tough part for the 4e fans is to be patient and not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Hang in there we might all be pleased.
"The worthy GM never purposely kills players' PCs. He presents opportunities for the rash and unthinking players to do that all on their own." --Gary Gygax
this time i hope everybody will give it a try.
the earlyer attempt of bringing the players that stuck with older edition back into the fold failed becouse many of them refused to touch anything with a 4th edition logo on it.
even the essentials edition that in my opinion was especialy made to apeal to players of older editions.


many 4th edition players feal that essentials already met those who liked the older type of game half way.
and feal that anything moving "backward" more then essentials did is unfare the the players who play the 4th edition core game.

4e will still be played and most likely supported so it's a win-win for Wizards.


I'm not a terribly spiteful person (well, maybe I am, but you guys will never know) but if DDN is a bucket of suckit for 4E fans, I'll buy used copies of the 4E books I don't have, print out the errata, and cancel my DDI subscription, assuming WotC even bothers to continue support. I'm trying to be somewhat optimistic about future additions to the system, though I'm kinda nervous that the core rules of DDN are intentionally obfuscated.

truth/humor
Ed_Warlord, on what it takes to make a thread work: I think for it to be really constructive, everyone would have to be honest with each other, and with themselves.

 

iserith: The game doesn't profess to be "just like our world." What it is just like is the world of Dungeons & Dragons. Any semblance to reality is purely coincidental.

 

Areleth: How does this help the problems we have with Fighters? Do you think that every time I thought I was playing D&D what I was actually doing was slamming my head in a car door and that if you just explain how to play without doing that then I'll finally enjoy the game?

 

TD: That's why they put me on the front of every book. This is the dungeon, and I am the dragon. A word of warning though: I'm totally not a level appropriate encounter.

the people who refused to give 4e a fair shake.



I always find comments like this amusing. Is giving Wizards $100 and wanting to like it, a fair shake?
True, but if Bob the simple fighter is complaining about Jimmy the complex fighter being more complex, he can just roll himself up a complex fighter.


And probably hate it the whole way that his 'traditional' fighter is discouraged by the system, too.
I'm not a terribly spiteful person (well, maybe I am, but you guys will never know) but if DDN is a bucket of suckit for 4E fans, I'll buy used copies of the 4E books I don't have, print out the errata, and cancel my DDI subscription, assuming WotC even bothers to continue support. I'm trying to be somewhat optimistic about future additions to the system, though I'm kinda nervous that the core rules of DDN are intentionally obfuscated.


Used books?  Heck, if that happens, I'm hitting the file sharing sites and ripping an offline version of the compendium and old CB.  And anything else that's there while I'm at it.
Seriously, though, you should check out the PbP Haven. You might also like Real Adventures, IF you're cool.
Knights of W.T.F.- Silver Spur Winner
4enclave, a place where 4e fans can talk 4e in peace.
I've actually been wondering about this myself. It seems that what I want from my D&D and what most 4E fans want from their D&D are completely polar opposites. WoTC sure has their work cut out for them...

 
Used books?  Heck, if that happens, I'm hitting the file sharing sites and ripping an offline version of the compendium and old CB.  And anything else that's there while I'm at it.


File sharing sites? Heck, I'll drive up to Renton, put on my ninja suit, scale WotC Tower, and steal all the dragonborn and tiefling miniatures!

And maybe delete some of Mike Mearls' Diablo 3 characters. OK, I'm a little spiteful. And competitive. 

truth/humor
Ed_Warlord, on what it takes to make a thread work: I think for it to be really constructive, everyone would have to be honest with each other, and with themselves.

 

iserith: The game doesn't profess to be "just like our world." What it is just like is the world of Dungeons & Dragons. Any semblance to reality is purely coincidental.

 

Areleth: How does this help the problems we have with Fighters? Do you think that every time I thought I was playing D&D what I was actually doing was slamming my head in a car door and that if you just explain how to play without doing that then I'll finally enjoy the game?

 

TD: That's why they put me on the front of every book. This is the dungeon, and I am the dragon. A word of warning though: I'm totally not a level appropriate encounter.

Used books?  Heck, if that happens, I'm hitting the file sharing sites and ripping an offline version of the compendium and old CB.  And anything else that's there while I'm at it.


File sharing sites? Heck, I'll drive up to Renton, put on my ninja suit, scale WotC Tower, and steal all the dragonborn and tiefling miniatures!

And maybe delete some of Mike Mearls' Diablo 3 characters. OK, I'm a little spiteful. And competitive. 


WotC tower?  Well, I'm gonna make a fort in the backyard, and it'll have a sign that says, "4e only" and I won't even make exceptions for anyone!
Seriously, though, you should check out the PbP Haven. You might also like Real Adventures, IF you're cool.
Knights of W.T.F.- Silver Spur Winner
4enclave, a place where 4e fans can talk 4e in peace.
Does this pattern imply that Next (as it currently stands) is more likely to change the splintered fanbase ratios


There is no "Next (as it currently stands)", or at least not one that can actually have a lasting impact.

All it implies is that the tiny microcosm of Next included in the 60 pages of playtest packet resembles pre-4e more than 4e.  But we have so little, that we're just reading tea leaves.  We're like archeologists finding half a tea cup from a civilization lost 3,000 years ago and extrapolating from that one artifact that the entire culture was based around, worshiped, and dedicated themselves to tea.
Isnt that what 5e is supossed to represent? Why cant I sit down with the Fighter as written right now, with a fighter that has taken power options? This is what WotC has stated repeatedly as thier desighn goal.



I don't have a 100% understanding of what WotC wants to accomplish. Neither does WotC for that matter. But I suspect they wnat to make it possible for group A to have a "simple" game and group B to have a "complex" game (with many modules, minimaps, and so forth).

However, a game where Fred the dwarf fighter is using minimalist rules (note that the playtest document specifically says you can leave out background and theme for a more "old school" flavor) and Geoff the dwarf fighter is using the two theme package* (Slayer and Guardian) and you're going to notice a huge difference between the characters. One is probably more interesting to play, although that's heavily player-dependent as well. One is definitely more powerful. One is more useful to the party. And all of them can do cool things like set their beer on fire to roast kobolds (that's more player-dependent than rules-dependent).

I don't think it's a good idea to have that kind of thing in the same game.

*A proposed rules change or module. And yes, I know the product isn't complete, and there's no guarantee either will be available, but I'd rather use something that half-exists than make up a completely ridiculous example just to "win" a conversation.



How is one more powerful or more useful to the party? The simple version can still do anything the powered version can do, using checks and/or contests.




In the specific example, the person I was replying to wanted a simple and powered version in the same party, even though the powered version would be able to accomplish additional tasks, such as dealing damage on a miss or protecting allies. This is flat-out more power.
Isnt that what 5e is supossed to represent? Why cant I sit down with the Fighter as written right now, with a fighter that has taken power options? This is what WotC has stated repeatedly as thier desighn goal.



I don't have a 100% understanding of what WotC wants to accomplish. Neither does WotC for that matter. But I suspect they wnat to make it possible for group A to have a "simple" game and group B to have a "complex" game (with many modules, minimaps, and so forth).

However, a game where Fred the dwarf fighter is using minimalist rules (note that the playtest document specifically says you can leave out background and theme for a more "old school" flavor) and Geoff the dwarf fighter is using the two theme package* (Slayer and Guardian) and you're going to notice a huge difference between the characters. One is probably more interesting to play, although that's heavily player-dependent as well. One is definitely more powerful. One is more useful to the party. And all of them can do cool things like set their beer on fire to roast kobolds (that's more player-dependent than rules-dependent).

I don't think it's a good idea to have that kind of thing in the same game.

*A proposed rules change or module. And yes, I know the product isn't complete, and there's no guarantee either will be available, but I'd rather use something that half-exists than make up a completely ridiculous example just to "win" a conversation.



How is one more powerful or more useful to the party? The simple version can still do anything the powered version can do, using checks and/or contests.




In the specific example, the person I was replying to wanted a simple and powered version in the same party, even though the powered version would be able to accomplish additional tasks, such as dealing damage on a miss or protecting allies. This is flat-out more power.




Every single one of the slayers attacks has damage on miss powers have no leg up there.  The guardian has  powers that allow him to protect his allies along with a few dailies he can use thanks to his class.  Powered classes already exist they are just hidden. 

I would love to see Spelljammer and Planescape back and supported again.



THIS! I will note though, that it had better be pre faction war or at least offer some cannon to bring the factions back into Sigil ;)  I'm picky like that.

I'm not clear why any of your observations are surprising, considering that the things that make 4e fans fans of 4e aren't yet included in the Next material.

I say this as a 4e fan.

The issue is that most people are having trouble seeing beyond the immediate, to the longer-term goals and principles rather than what's right in front of us.  People have said "they told us to test what's in front of us, I'm testing what's in front of me, I can't do anything but test what's in front of me."  I think that's a limited perspective.  I'd like to echo wrecan's comment - there is no "Next (as it currently stands)."  It's not complete enough to stand, yet.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition