|
1 year ago ::
Apr 26, 2012 - 1:16PM
#21
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2010
|
Posts like this piss me off. I don't care what version you play, or which version you prefer, none of you have the right to shove other people who don't play like you off into some pseudo-exile.
That's exactly how I felt when I frequented the 4e forums before 5e was announced. Everyone claimed that 4e was a godsend, but in truth all it did was push old school gamers to other systems. Even if we really wanted to be part of the community and tried our best to play 4e, our play style wasn't respected. There was only one way to play the game. As a result, the game suffered from a sickness of the present. Anyway, it's time for those people to Save or Die vs the Symbol Death that is 5e.
Wow. Just wow. I'm really not sure what to say to that, but I think you really need to re-evaluate your priorities in life.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 26, 2012 - 1:30PM
#22
|
|
|
I honestly recal being encuraged when I heard that the designers of 4e were reviewing video games for ideas. I thought this might make it easy for game designers to create D&D video games, but alas, it was not to be. Even with a system that should technicaly translate very well, we had next to nothing thanks to Atari.
I would argue that 4E is one of the hardest to translate systems into a PC game, unless you go for turn-based, which is something that is (very sadly) a rarity today and thus likely not an option.
Really, 4E is vastly harder to translate than the prior editions, simply because of the inherent complexity of the battlefield and the amount of reaction / immediate / interrupt stuff.
I think the 5e licence should be open to all game developers. Every published title only contribues to D&D popularity, it's free marketing.
This is a pretty naive view, no offense intended. Not every publicity is good publicity. Firstly that, and no sane publisher would allow for such a valuable IP to be exploited not only by him, but also by his rivals. That simply doesn't work very well, especially since nearly all D&D games would be very similar to one another (being CRPG's) and would thus also be rivals in terms of revenue and the time of their customers.
If you have questions about 4th Edition - don't hesitate to ask me via PMs. Join the Community Monster Manual Group and help to collect a mass of monsters which will make your life as DM easier, and your life as Player pure hell!  I am a cartographer. You can find some of my maps in my profile, free for non-commercial use. Also, if you happen to like maps or make them yourselves, join into the Cartographers Group!
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 26, 2012 - 1:46PM
#23
|
Date Joined:
Jan 10, 2012
|
I honestly recal being encuraged when I heard that the designers of 4e were reviewing video games for ideas. I thought this might make it easy for game designers to create D&D video games, but alas, it was not to be. Even with a system that should technicaly translate very well, we had next to nothing thanks to Atari.
I would argue that 4E is one of the hardest to translate systems into a PC game, unless you go for turn-based, which is something that is (very sadly) a rarity today and thus likely not an option.
Really, 4E is vastly harder to translate than the prior editions, simply because of the inherent complexity of the battlefield and the amount of reaction / immediate / interrupt stuff.
I think the 5e licence should be open to all game developers. Every published title only contribues to D&D popularity, it's free marketing.
This is a pretty naive view, no offense intended. Not every publicity is good publicity. Firstly that, and no sane publisher would allow for such a valuable IP to be exploited not only by him, but also by his rivals. That simply doesn't work very well, especially since nearly all D&D games would be very similar to one another (being CRPG's) and would thus also be rivals in terms of revenue and the time of their customers.
It can't be any worse than what Atari did could it? I think exclusive rights are also no way to go either.
I also don't agree with the competition concern. I think the more D&D games there are the more D&D fans will buy them. Most people who played NWN played BG, and even ToEE. The hard core D&D fans have most likely played every D&D game since the gold box era.
Imagine if MS Office wasn't available on the Mac or if Microsoft was the only company allowed to develop applications for Windows. lol... they would be bankrupt already.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 26, 2012 - 1:48PM
#24
|
Date Joined:
Nov 30, 2005
|
I would argue that 4E is one of the hardest to translate systems into a PC game, unless you go for turn-based, which is something that is (very sadly) a rarity today and thus likely not an option.
Each power has a cooldown timer ala MMOs every computer game ever. At will cools down in 6 seconds. Encounter cools down in 5 min. Daily is set to 24 hours. All recharge upon a rest.
5e comments and thoughts all in one place. Check it out to provide feedback, mock, or steal ideas.
http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/28835423/Krusks_5e_Design_Goals?sdb=1
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 26, 2012 - 2:15PM
#25
|
|
|
I would argue that 4E is one of the hardest to translate systems into a PC game, unless you go for turn-based, which is something that is (very sadly) a rarity today and thus likely not an option.
Each power has a cooldown timer ala MMOs every computer game ever. At will cools down in 6 seconds. Encounter cools down in 5 min. Daily is set to 24 hours. All recharge upon a rest.
Unless you're talking about an old-school turn-based game (like we had for AD&D and 3E) then very little of 4E would translate well. In AD&D and 3E, you could have games like BG that were hybrid real-time/turn-based. If you've got 4E's strong emphasis on forced movement and action economy (free actions, reactions, interrupts, opportunity actions, minor action heals, etc) then something like BG or NWN is way too fast to accommodate that complexity. Something slower and more deliberate would work, sure. But I don't think that's what you're getting at here.
The idea that 4E's cooldowns would somehow work for an MMO is also laughable. Good luck suggesting daily combat abilities to the folks at Blizzard - a daily power would have close to zero value in that system. Oops, we ued our dailies and the boss killed us - everyone log out 'til tomorrow and we'll try again. Actually, everyone cancel your accounts and play Star Wars instead. The AEDU framework fits D&D rounds and encounters, not MMORPG boss fights.
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. Quotation of the moment
Show
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?
Quotation of ALL moments
Show
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.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 26, 2012 - 2:24PM
#26
|
Date Joined:
Jan 24, 2006
|
Posts like this piss me off. I don't care what version you play, or which version you prefer, none of you have the right to shove other people who don't play like you off into some pseudo-exile.
That's exactly how I felt when I frequented the 4e forums before 5e was announced. Everyone claimed that 4e was a godsend, but in truth all it did was push old school gamers to other systems. Even if we really wanted to be part of the community and tried our best to play 4e, our play style wasn't respected. There was only one way to play the game. As a result, the game suffered from a sickness of the present. Anyway, it's time for those people to Save or Die vs the Symbol Death that is 5e.
I totally agree, dmgorgon. I basically started shopping around for any RPG I could find after 4e came out. I bought a superheroes RPG, Pathfinder, Savage Worlds, Horror Rules, Blue Rose, and others. None of them quite had that 'classic D&D feel' but I'd still recommend Horror Rules and Savage Worlds to anyone, because they're very interesting.
I don't agree with 'flaming' editions. I think 4e's system was pretty brilliant on a basic level. It just didn't seem to pull off the 'flavor' and 'style' as well as I would have liked.
--David
David L. Dostaler
Author, Challenger RPG (free)
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 26, 2012 - 2:45PM
#27
|
|
|
It can't be any worse than what Atari did could it? I think exclusive rights are also no way to go either.
You can do worse than Atari. Way worse.
I also don't agree with the competition concern. I think the more D&D games there are the more D&D fans will buy them. Most people who played NWN played BG, and even ToEE. The hard core D&D fans have most likely played every D&D game since the gold box era.
Do you see a time-wise relationship between Baldurs Gate and NEverwinter? They were released years apart:
- Baldurs Gate - 1998
- Baldurs Gate 2 - 2000
- Neverwinter Nights - 2002
- Neverwinter Nights 2 - 2006
The time between the titles is a fair bit, that's why people played them all at their individual release times. If you make the lincence unbound (something I am not sure is really possible) then game releases would be less far apart and more or less spam the user with choices. If you are limited on cash (a fact that pertains to most people, I would argue) you have to choose between game titles you play. And if all of the titles were CRPGs with the inherent length of the same, you would have to choose which you devote your time to. Esentially that's like being your own competition, and in a bad way. Time and money are limited ressources for most of us, after all. Imagine if MS Office wasn't available on the Mac or if Microsoft was the only company allowed to develop applications for Windows. lol... they would be bankrupt already.
And this has an impact on the topic at hand how exactly?
If you have questions about 4th Edition - don't hesitate to ask me via PMs. Join the Community Monster Manual Group and help to collect a mass of monsters which will make your life as DM easier, and your life as Player pure hell! I am a cartographer. You can find some of my maps in my profile, free for non-commercial use. Also, if you happen to like maps or make them yourselves, join into the Cartographers Group!
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 26, 2012 - 5:20PM
#28
|
|
|
I think the modules will be for the non-grognards.
probably.
Which means I probably might as well just play 4e.
Don't get me wrong, I'll playtest it, but it's not looking like I'll get an evolution and refinement of the game, so it's not looking too bright in terms of whether or not I'll spend money on it.
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.
I could say anything in D&D is silly though, because it's a silly game and we are silly people.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 26, 2012 - 7:12PM
#29
|
Date Joined:
Jun 29, 2010
|
Posts like this piss me off. I don't care what version you play, or which version you prefer, none of you have the right to shove other people who don't play like you off into some pseudo-exile.
That's exactly how I felt when I frequented the 4e forums before 5e was announced. Everyone claimed that 4e was a godsend, but in truth all it did was push old school gamers to other systems. Even if we really wanted to be part of the community and tried our best to play 4e, our play style wasn't respected. There was only one way to play the game. As a result, the game suffered from a sickness of the present. Anyway, it's time for those people to Save or Die vs the Symbol Death that is 5e.
Wow. Just wow. I'm really not sure what to say to that, but I think you really need to re-evaluate your priorities in life.
I think you should reread what he said, because it's a spot on analysis of the situation that a LOT of us went through.
DISCLAIMER - Everything said by anyone is absolute subjective opinion. There are no objective claims being made by me, or anyone else, unless they overtly state 'The following is an objective claim'. At this point if you choose to be offended by anything I (or anyone else) say the problem is ENTIRELY your own.
WotC won't let us give them money because they won't produce a game we want to play.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 26, 2012 - 8:49PM
#30
|
|
|
Yeah, I agree. These boards were none to friendly to the oldschool gamers and the tone of 4e was sort of condescending to players of prior editions. Coming from the design team themselves.
The good thing is that more people are invovled with playtesting 5e and there is a good balance of opinion returning to the forums.
For awhile on the forums, finding posters with likes similar to mine were few and far between. It was usually a case of "gang up on the dissenter"
"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
|
|
|
