|
1 year ago ::
Jan 09, 2012 - 10:36AM
#21
|
Date Joined:
Jan 15, 2009
|
both actually. i already have retro games coming out my ears and they are screwing 4e players
Many very modern games are pretty simple - simple is only retro for D&D. In some ways simple which is very generalized ie broadly useable (instead of a bunch of sub systems that dont actually derive from that simple base ) is new for D&D some of which you see in 4e.
The new edition too soon does feel more than a little like not providing? Where in hell is the Epic DMG???
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 09, 2012 - 10:58AM
#22
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2002
|
The L&L articles give me no real confidence that WotC is actually planning on listening to the players, but is instead more interested in making the players FEEL like they've been listened to. Some of the articles were basically Monte arguing against criticisms from previous articles.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 09, 2012 - 11:20AM
#23
|
Date Joined:
Oct 25, 2007
|
The L&L articles give me no real confidence that WotC is actually planning on listening to the players, but is instead more interested in making the players FEEL like they've been listened to. Some of the articles were basically Monte arguing against criticisms from previous articles.
I agree completely. I hated 90% of what was in those articles, so I'm not enthusiastic about the new edition.
The apparently important surveys didn't even let me answer what I was thinking. They were like so "would you prefer to have a 2nd edition or 3rd edition skills?" Um....I like 4th edition skills.
Yeah.....3rd edition revamped doesn't make me excited.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 09, 2012 - 12:11PM
#24
|
Date Joined:
Jun 15, 2010
|
The L&L articles give me no real confidence that WotC is actually planning on listening to the players, but is instead more interested in making the players FEEL like they've been listened to. Some of the articles were basically Monte arguing against criticisms from previous articles.
It's all about perspective.
The L&L articles give me confidence that WotC is actually planning on listening to the players (finally), and is also interested in making the players KNOW they've been listened to (open play test). Some of the articles were basically Monte asking our input on what we liked or did not like about previous editions, meaning they were probably not sure what to include but, rather based it on our input.
By the impressions articles I've read so far, they did just that. I guess is that my feedback and feedback like mine was likely the majority. But I also get the impression that a game very similar to 4E will be able to be played with these modular rules. So, it very likely could be a win win for those of us who enjoy both.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 09, 2012 - 12:23PM
#25
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2002
|
Read ALL of the articles and ALL of the poll questions. Much of them read less like "What do you think?" and more like "This idea is great, isn't it!"
It could just be the usual really really bad communication issue which has plagued the L&L articles, but there's a very strong suggestion that the articles were trying to drum up support, not critiques, for what was already going to be done.
You do not ask a question like "Do you think DMs should make real decisions?" if you're taking your audience's criticism seriously.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 09, 2012 - 12:50PM
#26
|
Date Joined:
Oct 11, 2010
|
Privateer Press did this with their field tests for Warmachine MKII and the results were excellent.
I am all infavor of public beta/feedback.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 09, 2012 - 1:07PM
#27
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2002
|
Privateer Press did this with their field tests for Warmachine MKII and the results were excellent.
I am all infavor of public beta/feedback.
Public feedback can be remarkable in value. You just have to have no emotional attachment to the rules you're asking about.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 09, 2012 - 1:44PM
#28
|
Date Joined:
Jun 15, 2010
|
Read ALL of the articles and ALL of the poll questions. Much of them read less like "What do you think?" and more like "This idea is great, isn't it!"
It could just be the usual really really bad communication issue which has plagued the L&L articles, but there's a very strong suggestion that the articles were trying to drum up support, not critiques, for what was already going to be done.
You do not ask a question like "Do you think DMs should make real decisions?" if you're taking your audience's criticism seriously.
I've read them all. I was generally among the first 5 people to comment on most of them. I found them so interesting and thought provoking and in tune to what many of us have been asking about for the last 3 years (like the MUST have been listening or they wouldn't have been able to bring up topics that we had all be talking about) that I would stay up late on Monday night to catch them immediately upon release. That poll question you mention is oft-cited but poorly so. Stated in a vacuum, I agree, it sounds silly, but in the context of what was written in the article it was not as bad as presented here and actually made sense. Like I said, I felt like the questions were useful and the articles thought provoking. As did quite a few other commentors on those articles. Though most of us got shouted down. 
Keep in mind, this is coming from a person who really enjoys 4E and was not a big fan of 3E or Montes previous work so I'm not some Monte kool-aide drinker.
|
|
|
