What does DM empowerment and Player entitlement mean to you?

Please answer the question in the title in as detailed a manner as possible.   Also if possible answer it as cleanly technical as you can.   Meaning avoid snarky attacks and gushing support.  

Then once you've answered the two questions feel free to comment further on how much of an element you like in YOUR games.   

Thanks.  I think to some degree this bears on the 5e design and will be useful raw data for the devs.  I am not saying they aren't already considering these things.  But a breakdown of varying ideas would I think be nice. 

My Blog which includes my Hobby Award Winning articles.

All that would depend on your individual version of what a "good" DM is and what an "average" dm is...



It all comes down to the quality of game they run. If the game was a really fun and memorable experience, then they were good. If the game was pretty fun, but not really great, then they were average. If the game wasn't very enjoyable then the DM was bad.

Of course there's sometimes when a DM's style just doesn't match up with your expectations and that causes problems, but that's the best general guideline.

 The 'edition war' started by the "H4ters" was a concerted, if disorganized and at first largely spontaneous, attempt to affect the market by spreading mis-information about 4e and stoking resentment towards WotC.  When Paizo decided to stick with 3.5 and clone it with Pathfinder, they tapped into the edition war furor and further fanned the flames.

Tony, to be completely fair, I think you'd have to agree that Wotc to a very large degree brought a lot of this negative reaction on themselves with some very questionable corporate decisions starting with the GSL and an open and blatent attempt to ice out the 3PPs that helped make OGL games the success they were.  Specifically, if it weren't for the GSL (and if 4e were OGL), Pathfinder as a competing TTRPG would not have happened.  I am not saying that.  Lisa Stevens has.

-Polaris

Certainly WotC badly mis-handled the whole thing.  I didn't mean to imply that they were nobly standing by while under attack or anything.

 

 

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

One of the ironies (tragedies, even) of the edition war is that the Lov3rs weren't fighting for what they wanted - ongoing support of 3.5, which they already had and could never lose - but to take away what the 4vengers wanted.   



Really, Tony you were doing so well up to the end.



What you're quoting there is one of the most brutally accurate things that's been said in this thread.

One of the ironies (tragedies, even) of the edition war is that the Lov3rs weren't fighting for what they wanted - ongoing support of 3.5, which they already had and could never lose - but to take away what the 4vengers wanted.   



Really, Tony you were doing so well up to the end.



Minus the language isn't Tony essentially correct though?  There is no legal force that can take any given group's favored version of DND away except for fourth edition.  Thus those that resist having 4e influences seem to be saying, "I have my game, but I won't be happy until you can not have yours."  That seems harsh, but in many cases that message is being sent loud and clear.

-Polaris



No, he is completely wrong.  If someone does not like a product then they do not buy it.  If not enough people buy a product then chances are that product will be discontinued.




You seem to have completely ignored the point, which is that the H4ters don't just want support for their favorite DnD, they want 4e to die, and for no trace of it to be left, even though that means that 4e fans are left without even the possibility of new material for their favorite DnD.

That's not even arguable. It's fact.


But that is not what Tony is claiming.  He says and I quote:

That the Lov3rs weren't fighting for what they wanted - ongoing support of 3.5, which they already had and could never lose - but to take away what the Hat3rs wanted. 



So that means that if you loved to play a 3e style of game and choose to spend your money on 3rd party supplements that supported that style of game, you were some how taking away from what someone else playing a totally different game wanted.

Because if WotC had made their magic 50 million figure (or whatever that figure was) you can guarantee that we would not be seeing the DnD Next play test right now.



And this is dishonest nonsense.

The bolded portion is not what he was saying. At all.

The 3e fans get new 3e material no matter what happens, as long as there are still 3e fans. 4e fans get new material exactly as long as WoTC continues printing it, and not a moment longer.

Seriously, if dnd had improved on 4e and continue in that direction, 3e fans would lose literally nothing.



Skeptical_Clown wrote:
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
104340961 wrote:
Pine trees didn't unanimously decide one day that leaves were gauche.
http://community.wizards.com/doctorbadwolf/blog/2012/01/10/how_we_can_help_make_dndnext_awesome
Is that what Shasarak meant?  Or did he just mean that 4e 'failed' because it didn't sell enough?  WotC, as always, hasn't shared the specific numbers, but, the market 4e faced was not a simple take-it-or-leave it, "may the best game win."  The 'edition war' started by the 'H4ters' was a concerted, if disorganized and at first largely spontaneous, attempt to affect the market by spreading mis-information about 4e and stoking resentment towards WotC.  When Paizo decided to stick with 3.5 and clone it with Pathfinder, they tapped into the edition war furor and further fanned the flames.

That's not a simple case of a good or bad product, anymore.  It became more like a political campaign, one in which one side was 'going negative' in a big way.



I don't think Paizo was doing anything malicious, though. I'm pretty sure they'd have supported 4e if the license had allowed them to do so in the form they wanted.

But seriously, I've never heard or seen a 4e fan jump into other people's conversations, IRL or online, and try to convince someone that another edition was terrible, and should be avoided. I've never seen or heard 4e fans call other editions "cancer", "an abomination", etc.

4e fans pretty much just want to play 4e, and no longer care about other editions (except, of course, the ones that like multiple editions, of which there are plenty).
Skeptical_Clown wrote:
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
104340961 wrote:
Pine trees didn't unanimously decide one day that leaves were gauche.
http://community.wizards.com/doctorbadwolf/blog/2012/01/10/how_we_can_help_make_dndnext_awesome
Is that what Shasarak meant?  Or did he just mean that 4e 'failed' because it didn't sell enough?  WotC, as always, hasn't shared the specific numbers, but, the market 4e faced was not a simple take-it-or-leave it, "may the best game win."  The 'edition war' started by the 'H4ters' was a concerted, if disorganized and at first largely spontaneous, attempt to affect the market by spreading mis-information about 4e and stoking resentment towards WotC.  When Paizo decided to stick with 3.5 and clone it with Pathfinder, they tapped into the edition war furor and further fanned the flames.

That's not a simple case of a good or bad product, anymore.  It became more like a political campaign, one in which one side was 'going negative' in a big way.



I don't think Paizo was doing anything malicious, though. I'm pretty sure they'd have supported 4e if the license had allowed them to do so in the form they wanted.

But seriously, I've never heard or seen a 4e fan jump into other people's conversations, IRL or online, and try to convince someone that another edition was terrible, and should be avoided. I've never seen or heard 4e fans call other editions "cancer", "an abomination", etc.

4e fans pretty much just want to play 4e, and no longer care about other editions (except, of course, the ones that like multiple editions, of which there are plenty).



I think 2E AD&D is cancer (mechanics wise) and someone couldn't possibly pay me less than $50.oo to play pre-3E D&D (money is money, afterall) but even if was $51.oo I'd still probably complain. It'd be an additional $25 to keep my grumbles to myself.

But back to the topic, yes pre-4E fans can have their cake and eat it too so long as people shell out ideas and homebrew mechanics. The OGL does nice work for them in that situation, a situation that 4E fans are left out in the cold from participating in. And really, I think WotC wants it this way. Think, with the GSL being what it is, they have ALL the reigns of power when it comes to 4E content. Why would they relinquish that power when they know that a portion of their fanbase might not like D&D:Next. So this power keeps people like me, a 4E fan, still paying them for DDI services just for useful reference tools like the Compendium and Character Builder. It would be like charging a service fee anytime someone accesses the d20srd.com site.  
When "RAW is Gospel" then the player entitlement trumps the say of the DM.

When "RAW is guideline" then the players and DM are on equal footing and there is some give and take amongst the two entities

When "There is no RAW" then the DM rules by fiat and that works if the DM is a good DM (meaning his players all have a lot of fun)



Change the last to average DM and I would agree.  It doesn't take a good DM for players to have a lot of fun in a fiat environment.



I would disagree.  In a pure fiat environment, a good DM is a must IMO.

-Polaris



You're welcome to your opinion, but I've played with average DMs and good DMs in that environment, and while good DMs were clearly better at it, the average DM could pull it off just fine.  In my experience, it's only when you get a poor DM that the game goes to pot.


Then AMBER Diceless Roleplaying ought to be paradise... 
 

 


Or not.  System does a lot to impact the game.  I love fiat D&D, but couldn't stand Amber.


All that would depend on your individual version of what a "good" DM is and what an "average" dm is...



Average is average.  It's what the vast majority of DMs are.  It's the norm.   

I've played with people I thought were pretty good, until I played with what I would call a good dm, then those former people became what I described as average.



What you are describing here is ignorance.  You simply did not know the difference between good and average before meeting the good DM, so you mistakenly believed an average DM was good.  That was your misconception.
 
I could still meet an even better DM wou would be the new "good", which would make the former good "average" which would push my former average down to "poor".



And this is wrong.  DMs don't move up or down grades simply because someone else is better or worse.  Within each grade you will find people inside that are better or worse than others in those grades.  If you found a good DM (one that is above the norm), he doesn't suddenly fall back into the norm simply because you found a better DM.  You have just found two good DMs, one of which is better than the other.


 Is that what Shasarak meant?  Or did he just mean that 4e 'failed' because it didn't sell enough?  WotC, as always, hasn't shared the specific numbers, but, the market 4e faced was not a simple take-it-or-leave it, "may the best game win."  The 'edition war' started by the 'H4ters' was a concerted, if disorganized and at first largely spontaneous, attempt to affect the market by spreading mis-information about 4e and stoking resentment towards WotC.  When Paizo decided to stick with 3.5 and clone it with Pathfinder, they tapped into the edition war furor and further fanned the flames.



I've seen a lot of posts along these lines (probably 80% yours).  I really don't think that many people totally rejected 4e without playing it.  In fact I doubt it was a significant percentage.  The game was released and everybody bought it early on which accounts for a lot of it's sales.  I was in this group.  The fact that these same sales slowed down a lot later in the cycle is related to people abandoning the game after playing it (again thats me).

I'm not saying that no one fits the profile you describe Tony but is this group really all that big.  I don't think so.

I think there is a lot of denialism on these boards.  Maybe it's really only ten people but it's loud.  Anything which conflicts with their world view is explained away.   For example the playtest.  It seems to them (not me necessarily) that the devs are not catering to their concerns to the degree they want.  Instead of attributing this to feedback from the playtest they believe there is a conspiracy.   The devs are secretly hating on 4e despite how great a game it was and how successfully it sold and how well it is being supported in the playtest.

I think this "war" the h4ters carried out against 4e as you describe it is over the top.  People didn't like 4e.  They complained about the game because they loved D&D prior to 4e.   Ascribing some secret plot to deny fun to pro-4e people is pretty crazy.  Many people identify with the brand D&D and want it to continue in the tradition it has had in the past.  The best possible think that could happen for you Tony would be if 4e got it's own Pathfinder.  Because I don't see the long term D&D loyalty amongst the 4e ranks.  They might happily embrace a game along those lines.  In fact if WOTC were smart they'd make that game themselves.

 

My Blog which includes my Hobby Award Winning articles.

I was here when the first shots in the 4e edition wars started and I can assure you with 100% certainty that the large majority if not all the people who hated on 4e did so without ever playing the game.  Hell most of the 4e hate started months before it was even released and Tony is right, whatever it was, it was unorganized and kind of nutty but it was very intentional.  There was a lot of mean spirited bashing with the very hope tha 4e would fall on its face and the countless social media junkies could write "I told you so" on their facebook pages and blogs.  It was an edition hated not for its mechanics, but for its existance as it marked a replacement of a beloved game system, 3rd edition.  More so their was a real good business reason for everyone to hate it, as it marched countless third party publishers (which where also D&D fans) to the unemployment line. Which trickled down to game shops which closed in epidemic numbers after 4e was released.  It was literly beneficial for 4e to fail for pretty much everyone except people who didn't like 3e.

Which is why WoTc move with 4e was so odd.  Why cater to people who don't like the game you have been working on for a decade?

"Edition wars like all debates exist because people like debates"

http://www.gamersdungeon.net/

I was here when the first shots in the 4e edition wars started and I can assure you with 100% certainty that the large majority if not all the people who hated on 4e did so without ever playing the game.  Hell most of the 4e hate started months before it was even released and Tony is right, whatever it was, it was unorganized and kind of nutty but it was very intentional.  There was a lot of mean spirited bashing with the very hope tha 4e would fall on its face and the countless social media junkies could write "I told you so" on their facebook pages and blogs.  It was an edition hated not for its mechanics, but for its existance as it marked a replacement of a beloved game system, 3rd edition.  More so their was a real good business reason for everyone to hate it, as it marched countless third party publishers (which where also D&D fans) to the unemployment line. Which trickled down to game shops which closed in epidemic numbers after 4e was released.  It was literly beneficial for 4e to fail for pretty much everyone except people who didn't like 3e.

Which is why WoTc move with 4e was so odd.  Why cater to people who don't like the game you have been working on for a decade?




There were a lot of people that rushed out and bought the books thinking this would be a continuation of their beloved game, when in fact it was an entirely new game with new rules, new paradigms, and new canon.

Overall it matched the rollout of New Coke and New JC Penney. Market Research is ALWAYS important before trying to make a radical change to your brand.
"If it's not a conjuration, how did the wizard con·jure/ˈkänjər/Verb 1. Make (something) appear unexpectedly or seemingly from nowhere as if by magic. it?" -anon "Why don't you read fire·ball / fī(-ə)r-ˌbȯl/ and see if you can find the key word con.jure /'kən-ˈju̇r/ anywhere in it." -Maxperson
I was here when the first shots in the 4e edition wars started and I can assure you with 100% certainty that the large majority if not all the people who hated on 4e did so without ever playing the game.  Hell most of the 4e hate started months before it was even released and Tony is right, whatever it was, it was unorganized and kind of nutty but it was very intentional.  There was a lot of mean spirited bashing with the very hope tha 4e would fall on its face and the countless social media junkies could write "I told you so" on their facebook pages and blogs.  It was an edition hated not for its mechanics, but for its existance as it marked a replacement of a beloved game system, 3rd edition. 



This sort of bashing happened, but it was really minimal. And the same thing happened during the transition from AD&D to 3E too.

The main thing with 4E was that quite simply it was a very different type of game. Combats took much longer than any prior edition, there was no simple fighter (at least until essentials). Many of the powerful abilities of prior edition spellcasters were stripped away or heavily nerfed, like invisibility, flight, etc. The nerfing generally made it such that these abilities lacked in noncombat value. The emphasis of the game shifted from strategy to tactics, and combat healing became godly. Combat had all kinds of fiddly bits with marks, quarries, and one turn status effects being thrown around like candy. It felt like there was a lot more to track than any prior edition.

All in all 4E was very very different from prior editions, and unsurprisingly, there were people who disliked the changes. There were others who felt that 4E was the way D&D should have been all along.

Now, the main problem with the edition war is that the 4E-haters tended to word things in a very unarticulate way. They'd say crap like "Everyone gets spells" or "all the powers feel the same" and stuff like that. Many of the 4E fans had trouble making heads or tails out of many of the comments because they were worded so poorly most of the time, they just didn't make a hell of a lot of sense. This was largely, because the arguments came down to the feel of the game, and trying to describe a feeling is much more difficult than saying "druids are broken."

The majority of the feel issues came from the fact that combat was just too long, and there was one mechanic for combat removal, HP attrition. To make that worse, the PCs were given ridiculous amounts of combat healing, so the entire thing went from the "Bang you're dead!" feel of 3E, to a long tiring grind. The "every power is the same" argument simply hailed from the fact that the game was so grindy. All powers slowly chipped away from the enemy and maybe instilled a minor status effect. Sure it wasn't that they were all actually the same, but in terms of feel, yeah it was pretty similar.  It wasn't that AD&D or 3E had a lot of really versatile effects that 4E didn't. It was more the fact that the pre-4E editions weren't afraid to give you tide turning abilities.


Is that what Shasarak meant?  Or did he just mean that 4e 'failed' because it didn't sell enough?  WotC, as always, hasn't shared the specific numbers, but, the market 4e faced was not a simple take-it-or-leave it, "may the best game win."  The 'edition war' started by the 'H4ters' was a concerted, if disorganized and at first largely spontaneous, attempt to affect the market by spreading mis-information about 4e and stoking resentment towards WotC.  When Paizo decided to stick with 3.5 and clone it with Pathfinder, they tapped into the edition war furor and further fanned the flames.

That's not a simple case of a good or bad product, anymore.  It became more like a political campaign, one in which one side was 'going negative' in a big way.



I don't think Paizo was doing anything malicious, though. I'm pretty sure they'd have supported 4e if the license had allowed them to do so in the form they wanted.

But seriously, I've never heard or seen a 4e fan jump into other people's conversations, IRL or online, and try to convince someone that another edition was terrible, and should be avoided. I've never seen or heard 4e fans call other editions "cancer", "an abomination", etc.

4e fans pretty much just want to play 4e, and no longer care about other editions (except, of course, the ones that like multiple editions, of which there are plenty).



I think 2E AD&D is cancer (mechanics wise) and someone couldn't possibly pay me less than $50.oo to play pre-3E D&D (money is money, afterall) but even if was $51.oo I'd still probably complain. It'd be an additional $25 to keep my grumbles to myself.

But back to the topic, yes pre-4E fans can have their cake and eat it too so long as people shell out ideas and homebrew mechanics. The OGL does nice work for them in that situation, a situation that 4E fans are left out in the cold from participating in. And really, I think WotC wants it this way. Think, with the GSL being what it is, they have ALL the reigns of power when it comes to 4E content. Why would they relinquish that power when they know that a portion of their fanbase might not like D&D:Next. So this power keeps people like me, a 4E fan, still paying them for DDI services just for useful reference tools like the Compendium and Character Builder. It would be like charging a service fee anytime someone accesses the d20srd.com site.  




Which is a crappy situation. Really crappy. But if next is as bad as I'm worried it will be, I'd rather just leave DnD and play one of the other half dozen games I like than pay for DDI.
Skeptical_Clown wrote:
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
104340961 wrote:
Pine trees didn't unanimously decide one day that leaves were gauche.
http://community.wizards.com/doctorbadwolf/blog/2012/01/10/how_we_can_help_make_dndnext_awesome
I was here when the first shots in the 4e edition wars started and I can assure you with 100% certainty that the large majority if not all the people who hated on 4e did so without ever playing the game.  Hell most of the 4e hate started months before it was even released and Tony is right, whatever it was, it was unorganized and kind of nutty but it was very intentional.  There was a lot of mean spirited bashing with the very hope tha 4e would fall on its face and the countless social media junkies could write "I told you so" on their facebook pages and blogs.  It was an edition hated not for its mechanics, but for its existance as it marked a replacement of a beloved game system, 3rd edition. 



This sort of bashing happened, but it was really minimal. And the same thing happened during the transition from AD&D to 3E too.



No it really wasn't minimal.  It was very loud, very concerted, and it happened long before the specifics of 4e were ever known.  While there was some of that for 3e, you seem to overlook the large reservoir of good will that Wotc had circa 2000 for saving DnD, and they really did save DnD at that time.  Not only that, but Wotc at that time went out of their way to try to connect with traditional DND players.  Basically, Wotc marketed 3e far, far better than it marketed 4e.

However, in this xguild is basically right.  Wotc by it's corporate policies (GSL, icing out 3PP partners, effectively 'firing' entire sections of their fanbase, etc) generate an enormous amount of badwill and 4e was the convenient scapegoat for most of it, and to be perfectly honest, very little of it dealt with 4e as a game on it's own merits....and the existing toxic environment merely magnified the vitriol (and yes Paizo did cheerfully fan the flames for their own profit), and the fact that OGL (and Pathfinder specifically) existed meant that the angry refusniks would never go away, and so the wounds of the edition war would never heal.

I fail to see how that has changed in 2-3 years save who is on the receiving end.

-Polaris
and the fact that OGL (and Pathfinder specifically) existed meant that the angry refusniks would never go away, and so the wounds of the edition war would never heal.



Sorry to break this to you, but AD&D has had retroclones for a long time, and more than one. I'm really not sure how Pathfinder is any different from those.

and the fact that OGL (and Pathfinder specifically) existed meant that the angry refusniks would never go away, and so the wounds of the edition war would never heal.



Sorry to break this to you, but AD&D has had retroclones for a long time, and more than one. I'm really not sure how Pathfinder is any different from those.




I hate to break it to you, but the difference is night and day.  The retroclones are now protected by the OGL, and frankly the size of the OSR market was very tiny and essentially unsupported until very recently.

By contrast, with the OGL, you had an entire company putting out a rival game with the same rules that the 'refusers' wanted and it would be fully supported.

Huge difference.

-Polaris
I hate to break it to you, but the difference is night and day.  The retroclones are now protected by the OGL, and frankly the size of the OSR market was very tiny and essentially unsupported until very recently.


Lol. Yeah, I'm sure the market is "very tiny" which is why there are more OSR retroclones than I can even remember or why WotC decided to reprint the old 1E and 2E core books. Because apparently the 1E AD&D reprints sold so poorly that they decided to reprint 2nd edition as well. It's also why they've started to have D&DN take a step back from the rules heavy, grid-based 3E/4E rules and gone back to the theater of the mind AD&D style combat. Because again, clearly, nobody liked those old OSR ideas.

4E's short life was not the work of Pathfinder, people on the forums, Paizo or the OGL. It didn't happen because shadow shrouded conspirators got together in a smoke-filled room and plotted nefarous ways to twist the truth. 4E didn't do well quite simply because people didn't like it, and it wasn't the kind of game that people wanted.

People did not like 4E, it wasn't because they didn't try it, it was because it wasn't the style they wanted. I realize you love 4E and hate OSR, but not everyone shares your feelings. It's really that simple, and you just need to accept that.


It didn't happen because shadow shrouded conspirators got together in a smoke-filled room and plotted nefarous ways to twist the truth.



C'mon Dwarfslayer, don't rob me of my rapidly-fading memories of the times when Smoker Guy of X-Files fame was the big evil in -every- room!

"Lightning...it flashes bright, then fades away.  It can't protect, it can only destroy."

I hate to break it to you, but the difference is night and day.  The retroclones are now protected by the OGL, and frankly the size of the OSR market was very tiny and essentially unsupported until very recently.


Lol. Yeah, I'm sure the market is "very tiny" which is why there are more OSR retroclones than I can even remember or why WotC decided to reprint the old 1E and 2E core books. Because apparently the 1E AD&D reprints sold so poorly that they decided to reprint 2nd edition as well. It's also why they've started to have D&DN take a step back from the rules heavy, grid-based 3E/4E rules and gone back to the theater of the mind AD&D style combat. Because again, clearly, nobody liked those old OSR ideas.

4E's short life was not the work of Pathfinder, people on the forums, Paizo or the OGL. It didn't happen because shadow shrouded conspirators got together in a smoke-filled room and plotted nefarous ways to twist the truth. 4E didn't do well quite simply because people didn't like it, and it wasn't the kind of game that people wanted.

People did not like 4E, it wasn't because they didn't try it, it was because it wasn't the style they wanted. I realize you love 4E and hate OSR, but not everyone shares your feelings. It's really that simple, and you just need to accept that.




Believe what you like but in 2000 the OSR phenomena was tiny, and while in all edition changes in DND, there is always an element that refuses to change, there wasn't nearly the long lasting, loud, and even strident opposition against 3e that 4e drew, and it has NOTHING to do with 4e's system.  I lived through it.  For the most part, the 4e mechanics weren't even known (and in fact the inner workings of 4e during playtest were a very well kept secret).  You seem to be overlooking and forgetting how recent the OSR movement is, and with all due respect I think it is coloring your memory of things.

Basically the Pathfinder/OGL movement which allowed for a prior edition of the game to become it's a full fledged SUPPORTED competitor was far, far a bigger deal than a handful of refusesers that continued to play with old 2e materials that were privately produced (for the most part) in tehir basements.

-Polaris

It didn't happen because shadow shrouded conspirators got together in a smoke-filled room and plotted nefarous ways to twist the truth.



C'mon Dwarfslayer, don't rob me of my rapidly-fading memories of the times when Smoker Guy of X-Files fame was the big evil in -every- room!




I think this is a mischaracterization of what Tony has said.  I don't believe he said it was an organized nefarious conspiracy.  In fact as I recall, Tony said it was disorganized.  That said, I think it's very clear that 4e fell victim to a long and hard hitting political campaign that was explicitly designed to make 4e fail before it's mechanical contents were even known, and the goal really seemed to be to keep it from surviving in any form.  I see that trend and campaign going on to this day.  If some are going to demand that they be allowed to enjoy DnD their way, then those that actually like 4e should be given the same courtesy and I believe for the most part they haven't been given that courtesy.

-Polaris
I think this is a mischaracterization of what Tony has said.  I don't believe he said it was an organized nefarious conspiracy.  In fact as I recall, Tony said it was disorganized.  That said, I think it's very clear that 4e fell victim to a long and hard hitting political campaign that was explicitly designed to make 4e fail before it's mechanical contents were even known, and the goal really seemed to be to keep it from surviving in any form.  I see that trend and campaign going on to this day.  If some are going to demand that they be allowed to enjoy DnD their way, then those that actually like 4e should be given the same courtesy and I believe for the most part they haven't been given that courtesy.

-Polaris



I'm sure it was.  Tony and I disagree on many things, but he does present his side very eloquently and with consideration.  I was trying a moment of levity, that's all.

FWIW, I really couldn't say one way or another about how the whole edition war started (which is generally why I avoid that topic).  I hadn't stumbled across D&D forums at that time.  I can only vaguely go on what I hear from each side and what I remember from the one pre-4e thing I ever saw (that video with the French guy?  You know the one, 'the game will remain the same'?).  I agree with your latter comment about 4e players, that they should be given the courtesy to play how they want.  I'm not sure what venue it can be/could be/will be in, and I'm loathe to take a guess as to which -- and I think that that question is one that will never have an answer that is even satisfactory to a majority of 4e players...perhaps even a plurality. 

I do think, and this may be entirely accidental or unintentional, that many 4e players group anyone who prefers older editions as part of this collective or campaign, though, when we're not.   In that way, it can make it seem like there is a larger group 'against' them, for lack of a better term, than what there really may be.

"Lightning...it flashes bright, then fades away.  It can't protect, it can only destroy."

I agree with Polaris here.

I have been through all the edition changes and I have never seen anything like the outright despising that 4e endured.

I admit I believed the hater's rhetoric myself for a time and the vehement responses of the 4e fan base only served to fan the flames of hate.  I eventually got over all that and actually studied and played the game and found it had many merits.

Whenever I mentioned the good aspects of 4e, be it at my home town or at a convention, the results were the same:  Either massive denial, or a wide eyed, jaw dropped, "No way!"  In both cases, most of the folks I talked to never played it.

I tried to get a game of 4e going, but the opposition to it was too strong and thus my players steered me into Pathfinder.

The main reason I didn't fully embrace 4e and suggest my players in to it was two-fold:  First, I struggled on how to adapt my longstanding campaign into the 4e system.  Second, once I figured out the first issue, WotC shifted to Essentials and caused me to be unsure of whatever direction I should take-- thus I took the easy way out.

I would have to say this:  I feel the blame lies in the how the 4e Player's handbook was written and marketed.  WotC and the book did absolutely nothing to showcase the strengths of the system.  If the system's strengths were showcased better at the very beginning I bet I would be in a 4e game instead of Pathfinder.
 and it has NOTHING to do with 4e's system.



Nothing you've said makes sense outside the context of "I MUST DEFEND MY EDITION!"

Lack of knowledge regarding the specifics of the system is not the same as knowing nothing. WotC was very forward in what they were building. You could tell what was coming by the way they talked about it. We didn't need ot know mechanics to know where the fundemental mentality being taken into the design of 4E was going to lead. 

The very core of what D&D had been since the '70s was being turned on its head by what WotC was saying about 4th Edition. That's not to say it's a *bad* system. In fact, it's an outstanding system at what it does. I don't think any reasonable person has disputed that. But it quite simply isn't the same game as those that had come before, for better or worse. You believe better... that's fine. That doesn't mean I'm unreasonable and incapable of judging for myself.
I do think, and this may be entirely accidental or unintentional, that many 4e players group anyone who prefers older editions as part of this collective or campaign, though, when we're not.   In that way, it can make it seem like there is a larger group 'against' them, for lack of a better term, than what there really may be.



It is easy (and lazy frankly) to blame collectives of people and characterize entire groups of people rather than to carefully analyse groups and situations, and I am sure there is a lot of that going on (no matter what you think about your favorite form of DND).  I have been trying to avoid this particular error.  I have my preferences, Tony has his, and others have theirs, and that's fine (and there's been no attempt to hide this).  However, when Tony comments that there was a strident political campaign that started against fourth even before there was anything to complain about (at least in terms of the strict game mechanics), he is pretty much telling it like it is.  That being so, it gives another and frankly ugly perspective into how and why some people are saying the things they have and are.

-Polaris

Edit:  IE when Tony claims that from the start there seemed to be an overt political campaign to destroy 4e root and branch regardless of who liked it, as ugly as that sounds, he's pretty much stating it like it was and is.
 and it has NOTHING to do with 4e's system.



Nothing you've said makes sense outside the context of "I MUST DEFEND MY EDITION!"

Lack of knowledge regarding the specifics of the system is not the same as knowing nothing. WotC was very forward in what they were building. You could tell what was coming by the way they talked about it. We didn't need ot know mechanics to know where the fundemental mentality being taken into the design of 4E was going to lead. 

The very core of what D&D had been since the '70s was being turned on its head by what WotC was saying about 4th Edition. That's not to say it's a *bad* system. In fact, it's an outstanding system at what it does. I don't think any reasonable person has disputed that. But it quite simply isn't the same game as those that had come before, for better or worse. You believe better... that's fine. That doesn't mean I'm unreasonable and incapable of judging for myself.



Actually Wotc was not very forthcoming about what was coming in 4e except to say what it wasn't (and very snidely at that at times IMHO).  This is part of the absolutely horrific marketing that I was alluding to (to Tony).  I also note that nothing you've said justified the apparent desire to destroy a new edition before it was even printed.  Yes there had been edition wars before, but nothing to that degree.

For the most part I blame some incredibly short-sighted (dare I say stupid?) business (edit: and marketing) decisions of Wotc at the time, that seemed to go out of the way to alienate many 3e fans (then the current editions) as well as alienate those 3PPs that otherwise might have supported Wotc.

-Polaris
The 3e fans get new 3e material no matter what happens, as long as there are still 3e fans. 4e fans get new material exactly as long as WoTC continues printing it, and not a moment longer.

Seriously, if dnd had improved on 4e and continue in that direction, 3e fans would lose literally nothing.



Well that is complete and utter BS.

If you go to places like drivethroughrpg you can find tons of new material for 4e.  I dont see WotC issuing SoD notices to those publishers.


But seriously, I've never heard or seen a 4e fan jump into other people's conversations, IRL or online, and try to convince someone that another edition was terrible, and should be avoided. I've never seen or heard 4e fans call other editions "cancer", "an abomination", etc.

4e fans pretty much just want to play 4e, and no longer care about other editions (except, of course, the ones that like multiple editions, of which there are plenty).



Yes, 4e fans are pinacles of love and never say a bad word to anyone. 

Member of the Axis of Awesome

Show
Homogenising: Making vanilla in 31 different colours
The 3e fans get new 3e material no matter what happens, as long as there are still 3e fans. 4e fans get new material exactly as long as WoTC continues printing it, and not a moment longer.

Seriously, if dnd had improved on 4e and continue in that direction, 3e fans would lose literally nothing.



Well that is complete and utter BS.

If you go to places like drivethroughrpg you can find tons of new material for 4e.  I dont see WotC issuing SoD notices to those publishers.



4e is currently still the 'supported' edition of DND.  Also just because Wotc doesn't send Cease and Desist Letters doesn't mean that they can't or won't in the future.  The point is that 4e exists pretty much purely at Wotc's whim.  The GSL was written specifically to insure this.


But seriously, I've never heard or seen a 4e fan jump into other people's conversations, IRL or online, and try to convince someone that another edition was terrible, and should be avoided. I've never seen or heard 4e fans call other editions "cancer", "an abomination", etc.

4e fans pretty much just want to play 4e, and no longer care about other editions (except, of course, the ones that like multiple editions, of which there are plenty).



Yes, 4e fans are pinacles of love and never say a bad word to anyone. 



Sure, there are bad apples in any fanbase, and from any group that prefers one sort of DND to another.  This is hardly news.  However, to my knowledge, there hasn't been a hew and cry to remove all traces of non-4e DND from existance.  Unfortunately the reverse is not true.

-Polaris
This sort of bashing happened, but it was really minimal.



I suppose it depends on what you call minimal.  I Recall a guy on a forums proudly proclaim in a new thread "I love 4th edition" with the thread being locked for "inciting edition wars". The moderators knew that's all it took to get a 300 page flame war going.  Its like that to this day.  I mean I would say even today the 4e bashing is a lot more than just "minimal".

"Edition wars like all debates exist because people like debates"

http://www.gamersdungeon.net/


Believe what you like but in 2000 the OSR phenomena was tiny, and while in all edition changes in DND, there is always an element that refuses to change, there wasn't nearly the long lasting, loud, and even strident opposition against 3e that 4e drew, and it has NOTHING to do with 4e's system.



I'm sure it had nothing to do with the fact that 4E combats took 1-2 hours, compared to the 15-30 minute combats of 3E. Nothing at all. It's all a big conspiracy against 4E by nameless internet puppet masters.

Riiiight.

Wow. Please redeem my faith in humanity and tell me you don't actually believe that.

I dont get the 1-2 hours combats in 4E. We've run battles from mods and homebrew and the generally take about 35 to 40 minutes. If its taking that long then your running a party with everyone "missing" attacks or rolling low or dont have any strikers.

Believe what you like but in 2000 the OSR phenomena was tiny, and while in all edition changes in DND, there is always an element that refuses to change, there wasn't nearly the long lasting, loud, and even strident opposition against 3e that 4e drew, and it has NOTHING to do with 4e's system.



I'm sure it had nothing to do with the fact that 4E combats took 1-2 hours, compared to the 15-30 minute combats of 3E. Nothing at all. It's all a big conspiracy against 4E by nameless internet puppet masters.

Riiiight.

Wow. Please redeem my faith in humanity and tell me you don't actually believe that.




Combats in 4e were too long.  They were about the same length of time in 3e as well provided at least one member of your party was a full caster and taking full advantage of that.  In fact between summons, pets, and different spells, combat in 3e dragged on as well (abeit for different reasons).

However, the campaign against 4e began LONG before it was known that long combats were a problem in 4e.

-Polaris

Believe what you like but in 2000 the OSR phenomena was tiny, and while in all edition changes in DND, there is always an element that refuses to change, there wasn't nearly the long lasting, loud, and even strident opposition against 3e that 4e drew, and it has NOTHING to do with 4e's system.



I'm sure it had nothing to do with the fact that 4E combats took 1-2 hours, compared to the 15-30 minute combats of 3E. Nothing at all. It's all a big conspiracy against 4E by nameless internet puppet masters.

Riiiight.

Wow. Please redeem my faith in humanity and tell me you don't actually believe that.




Combats in 4e were too long.  They were about the same length of time in 3e as well provided at least one member of your party was a full caster and taking full advantage of that.  In fact between summons, pets, and different spells, combat in 3e dragged on as well (abeit for different reasons).




Never anything like 4th Ed, even with high level magic, if anything encounters were sometimes too short in 3rd Ed, over in a 1 round, encounter breaking/ending spells. 



I saw it frequently.  Anyone that had Summoning spells (like Summon Nature's Ally) or Animal Companions (yes it was possible to have more than one with the right combo of PRCs), let alone controlled puppets (from dominate type spells or even rebuke undead type abilities), could and IMX often did slow 3.5 combat to a crawl.

-Polaris
The 'edition war' started by the 'H4ters' was a concerted, if disorganized and at first largely spontaneous, attempt to affect the market by spreading mis-information about 4e and stoking resentment towards WotC.  When Paizo decided to stick with 3.5 and clone it with Pathfinder, they tapped into the edition war furor and further fanned the flames.

That's not a simple case of a good or bad product, anymore.  It became more like a political campaign, one in which one side was 'going negative' in a big way.



I don't think Paizo was doing anything malicious, though. I'm pretty sure they'd have supported 4e if the license had allowed them to do so in the form they wanted.

The GSL was a really bad idea, and it certainly drove important 3pps away.  

Even with a company as small and closely-held as Paizo, it's hard to attribute malice.  It was a good business move to tap the nerdrage against 4e & WotC, and even encourage it.

But seriously, I've never heard or seen a 4e fan jump into other people's conversations, IRL or online, and try to convince someone that another edition was terrible, and should be avoided. I've never seen or heard 4e fans call other editions "cancer", "an abomination", etc.

4e fans pretty much just want to play 4e, and no longer care about other editions (except, of course, the ones that like multiple editions, of which there are plenty).

The focus of edition wars seems always to be on the current edition.  So, when 3e was current, fans were defending it from nonsensical attacks from 2e & earlier grognards - claiming, for an ironic instance, that 3.5 was 'grid dependent,' among other things.  When 4e became current, fans were defending it from 3.5 & earlier grognards shouting similar nonsense.  But, this time they had an OGL clone to rally around.

 

 

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

While there was some of that for 3e, you seem to overlook the large reservoir of good will that Wotc had circa 2000 for saving DnD, and they really did save DnD at that time.



Are you kidding?  I was on the WotC side of a huge fight (on the old forums) about how D&D was going to become a CCG.  In some ways the "edition" war back then was far worse than what we have now.

FTR, I am now thoroughly convinced that the worst thing that ever happened to the D&D brand was being "saved" by WotC.

Kalex the Omen 
Dungeonmaster Extraordinaire

OSR Fan? Our Big Announcement™ is here!

Please join our forums!

Concerning Player Rules Bias
Kalex_the_Omen wrote:
Gaining victory through rules bias is a hollow victory and they know it.
Concerning "Default" Rules
Kalex_the_Omen wrote:
The argument goes, that some idiot at the table might claim that because there is a "default" that is the only true way to play D&D. An idiotic misconception that should be quite easy to disprove just by reading the rules, coming to these forums, or sending a quick note off to Customer Support and sharing the inevitable response with the group. BTW, I'm not just talking about Next when I say this. Of course, D&D has always been this way since at least the late 70's when I began playing.

4E didn't do well quite simply because people didn't like it, and it wasn't the kind of game that people wanted.

People did not like 4E, it wasn't because they didn't try it, it was because it wasn't the style they wanted. I realize you love 4E and hate OSR, but not everyone shares your feelings. It's really that simple, and you just need to accept that.




lol

Yeah...a game that out sold everything else on the market in spite of:


  • having a clone of it's predecessor on the market at the same time, actively taking advantage of edition change bitterness,



  • a huge amount of misinformation (seriously, if you doubt this point you either don't know how 4e works, or haven't witnessed the hundreds of threads in which factually false claims are made about 4e) about the game

  •  marketing that pissed people off before the game even went to print


And which:


  •  continued to outsell even that clone competitor until the designers started pissing off the current fans with changed direction

  • and even then kept up with the competition until new content started to seriously lag while the other game put out more content in full force


all of which doesn't even take into account all the DDI account holders that didn't bother buying all the books... (at one point, folk figured out that roughly 81k people had active DDI subs. That was some time this year. I can't imagine it was less two years ago. At the cheapest sub rate, that's $486,000 dollars a month. Yeah. There's no way Pathfinder is bringing that in. )

yeah, that's a game that people "just didn't like."

One side of this argument is stubbornly sticking to conclusions that aren't holding up to logical analysis, and it's not the side I'm on.


The facts tell one story, and that story is that Next is happening one or all of three reasons: Someone thinks an "edition to rule them all" can significantly improve on already good numbers.

Someone thinks that books sales are more a more important measure of how the game is doing than total profit, and just doesn't like that DnD isn't on top in physical dead tree book sales, no matter what else.

It genuinely bothers them that the DnD community is divided, and they genuinely want to bring everyone together under the DnD umbrella, and the seeming snubbing of 4e players is just because they figure that since they're still supporting 4e we can handle it for a bit if they mostly show off for the old guard, but they (again) genuinely intend to support "our DnD" by the time Next goes to print.


Honestly, my money, were I a betting man, would be on all three.
Skeptical_Clown wrote:
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
104340961 wrote:
Pine trees didn't unanimously decide one day that leaves were gauche.
http://community.wizards.com/doctorbadwolf/blog/2012/01/10/how_we_can_help_make_dndnext_awesome
 and it has NOTHING to do with 4e's system.



Nothing you've said makes sense outside the context of "I MUST DEFEND MY EDITION!"

Lack of knowledge regarding the specifics of the system is not the same as knowing nothing. WotC was very forward in what they were building. You could tell what was coming by the way they talked about it. We didn't need ot know mechanics to know where the fundemental mentality being taken into the design of 4E was going to lead. 

The very core of what D&D had been since the '70s was being turned on its head by what WotC was saying about 4th Edition. That's not to say it's a *bad* system. In fact, it's an outstanding system at what it does. I don't think any reasonable person has disputed that. But it quite simply isn't the same game as those that had come before, for better or worse. You believe better... that's fine. That doesn't mean I'm unreasonable and incapable of judging for myself.




I will never understand this.

To me, DnD was barely DnD under WotC's control until 4e came along.

The 3e fans get new 3e material no matter what happens, as long as there are still 3e fans. 4e fans get new material exactly as long as WoTC continues printing it, and not a moment longer.

Seriously, if dnd had improved on 4e and continue in that direction, 3e fans would lose literally nothing.



Well that is complete and utter BS.

If you go to places like drivethroughrpg you can find tons of new material for 4e.  I dont see WotC issuing SoD notices to those publishers.


But seriously, I've never heard or seen a 4e fan jump into other people's conversations, IRL or online, and try to convince someone that another edition was terrible, and should be avoided. I've never seen or heard 4e fans call other editions "cancer", "an abomination", etc.

4e fans pretty much just want to play 4e, and no longer care about other editions (except, of course, the ones that like multiple editions, of which there are plenty).



Yes, 4e fans are pinacles of love and never say a bad word to anyone. 



Not at all. 4e fans will often roast someone alive...after that person has come into a forum and issued vitriol against their favorite edition on a level that's often frankly disgusting.

And 4e gets some new stuff from third parties, but most of it is amatuerish, and crippled in terms of what it can do by the GSL. 4e will never have anything comperable to Pathfinder. Ever. And when new meaty content dries up, the best we'll get are games that try to work within the OGL to build something with the same goals as 4e. IE, new games of similar stripe.

You can snark all you want, but 4e players are factually not in the same position as 3e players were when 4e came out.


And, as I've said already, 3e players would still be just covered as they are now had Next gone in a more 4e friendly direction.


Hell, if people weren't so mouth-frothing obsessed with killing anything related to 4e with a bloody stick named Tradition, and then pissing on it's corpse, Next could easily support 4e style play right alongside every other edition. But no. It's gotta be "that can't exist in my game. If you like that, you should play something other than DnD, and also, you're probably a bad person/mentally disabled/both" or at best, "Maybe as an option. In a splat. But I'll still tell you you're wrong for liking it, and it can't be in the PHB, even if the PHB has optional modules in it. Because reasons."

You show me one damn thread with 4e people acting like that.
Just one.
The forums are full of this crap being thrown at 4e fans.

Skeptical_Clown wrote:
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
104340961 wrote:
Pine trees didn't unanimously decide one day that leaves were gauche.
http://community.wizards.com/doctorbadwolf/blog/2012/01/10/how_we_can_help_make_dndnext_awesome
It was the 4e community on these forums, more than the system itself that turned me off of 4e and drove me to retry older editions.  I have to say that remembering how an older edition plays is far different than going back and playing it again.  I applaud MM and team for using this approach.  I even had the co-DM in my group argue against 2e...until we played it again.  Now it is his favorite edition.  I can understand a lot of people saying they played older editions before and they don't need to go back and try them again.  I was in that camp for a while.  But there is no substitute for actually doing it.  Everyone who hasn't replayed older editions recently is talking out of their butt in that regard.

Kalex the Omen 
Dungeonmaster Extraordinaire

OSR Fan? Our Big Announcement™ is here!

Please join our forums!

Concerning Player Rules Bias
Kalex_the_Omen wrote:
Gaining victory through rules bias is a hollow victory and they know it.
Concerning "Default" Rules
Kalex_the_Omen wrote:
The argument goes, that some idiot at the table might claim that because there is a "default" that is the only true way to play D&D. An idiotic misconception that should be quite easy to disprove just by reading the rules, coming to these forums, or sending a quick note off to Customer Support and sharing the inevitable response with the group. BTW, I'm not just talking about Next when I say this. Of course, D&D has always been this way since at least the late 70's when I began playing.

Everyone needs to change their focus on beating each other up, and be consistent and clear on what you want out of the game with the developers.
Everyone needs to change their focus on beating each other up, and be consistent and clear on what you want out of the game with the developers.



The nature of this excercise is such that being consistent and clear about what we want in the game must necessarily include pointing out when we disagree with what others want.  These message boards are the best way for most people to communicate their desires to the developers.  Letting someone (or even a relatively large group of someones) post repeatedly that they want D&D to be a CCG (picking an absurd example so as not to offend any real choice for what is just an illustration) and saying nothing about that, could be seen as de facto support of that idea.

I don't think things will get any better until 5e is released, and maybe not even then.

Kalex the Omen 
Dungeonmaster Extraordinaire

OSR Fan? Our Big Announcement™ is here!

Please join our forums!

Concerning Player Rules Bias
Kalex_the_Omen wrote:
Gaining victory through rules bias is a hollow victory and they know it.
Concerning "Default" Rules
Kalex_the_Omen wrote:
The argument goes, that some idiot at the table might claim that because there is a "default" that is the only true way to play D&D. An idiotic misconception that should be quite easy to disprove just by reading the rules, coming to these forums, or sending a quick note off to Customer Support and sharing the inevitable response with the group. BTW, I'm not just talking about Next when I say this. Of course, D&D has always been this way since at least the late 70's when I began playing.

Everyone needs to change their focus on beating each other up, and be consistent and clear on what you want out of the game with the developers.



The nature of this excercise is such that being consistent and clear about what we want in the game must necessarily include pointing out when we disagree with what others want.  These message boards are the best way for most people to communicate their desires to the developers.  Letting someone (or even a relatively large group of someones) post repeatedly that they want D&D to be a CCG (picking an absurd example so as not to offend any real choice for what is just an illustration) and saying nothing about that, could be seen as de facto support of that idea.

I don't think things will get any better until 5e is released, and maybe not even then.



I have to agree.  I think in part the problem with NEXT's approach is also its greatest advantage, that of being open to discussion prior to release.  It means that every opinion about the game still has a chance to actually make it into the game in some form.  Were it released already, our opinions as they are would be mostly irrelevant as it would have no impact against an already released product.  Hence tensions are considerably higher given we can analyze the game and discuss it opennly contributing to the global discussion of what will this game look like WHEN its released.

Things are made consdierably worse as we get closer to a final product because many of the core decesions have been made and if you disagree with them, it means you may very well not like NEXT which means before you even get a new edition you already dislike it... a pre-emptive edition war in the making.

In either case I think in large part, the issue right now is that D&D as a concept is up for debate.  When you get past the clutter, the question that remains without a consensus is "what is D&D".  Given the differences of playstyles that D&D has supported in the past, that question will never have a answer to which their is a consensus and hence, one can only presume that "tensions" over D&D editions will not stop and NEXT is not even close to closing that gap as it is today.

The other issue is the concept of compromise which in my humble opinion is a silly thing to ask of a consumer.  We as gamers are not willing nor should we be to compromise on the game we play as a hobby in our free time.  People make plenty of compromises, but when it comes to entertainment most are absolutly unwilling to even make the smallest one.  This unfortunatly is the biggest hurdle for NEXT.  How do you get staunch edition warriors to compromise and play a hybrid edition inbetween, a blending of their favorite edition and the one they don't like at all?  You can't.  The issue is made even worse by the fact that all past editions are supported in some fashion or another.  You can to this day get new modules for 1st, 2nd and 3rd editions from various vendors not to mention reprints directly from Wizards.  The concept of official support is a quirky one, as to me, Pathfinder is as officially D&D as 4th edition and as such how do you combat your own editions being supported by other businesses?

Its a real pickle that NEXT is in and frankly I don't even know how to advise it other than simply tell the developers of NEXT what I want with no regard about how others might feel about it.  This inevitably raises tensions in discussions which are secretly trying to lead everyone to a compromise, one, no one will ever make. In short, NEXT will either be made exactly how I want it, or I will continue to play the edition that I already play.  When you have your entire consumer base effectively voting with their wallets in this way, as a business you are eventually going to have to figuire out who has the most money and make a game for that group.  NEXT is already well on its way to doing that.  To which I can only say.. Hope you liked 3rd edition.

I love the concept of modularity, not sure how you would achieve, NEXT certainly hasn't done so yet, but if it can somehow pull it out in the end here than perhaps they can find a way to close this gap and heal some old wounds.  Im rooting for them, but I would say "I doubt it" about covers my sentiment towards the situation as it is today.  Prove me wrong please! ... I beg you, I would love to get my 4th edition players and my 1st edition players to sit at the same table..

"Edition wars like all debates exist because people like debates"

http://www.gamersdungeon.net/

This is why generalizations are bad. Even when you narrowed it down to two or three people they become inaccurate. frothsof runs a regular Labyrinth Lords game (or has until recently if he has stopped). Not liking a mechanic that existed pre-4e doesn't mean you hate pre-4e.

Reality Refracted: Social Contracts

My blog of Random Stuff 

Dreaming the Impossible Dream
Imagine a world where the first-time D&D player rolls stats, picks a race, picks a class, picks an alignment, and buys gear to create a character. Imagine if an experienced player, maybe the person helping our theoretical player learn the ropes, could also make a character by rolling ability scores and picking a race, class, feat, skills, class features, spells or powers, and so on. Those two players used different paths to build characters, but the system design allows them to play at the same table. -Mearl

"It is a general popular error to suppose the loudest complainers for the publick to be the most anxious for its welfare." - Edmund Burke

Back to Product and General D&D Discussions -- because the mobile site is bad. (Fixed!)

Sign In to post comments