|
1 year ago ::
Apr 26, 2012 - 4:53PM
#21
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2010
|
Oh, so now you think that I'm being dishonest through selective quoting?
Really, can't anyone take anything at face value? Respond to what I said, not what you assume my motivations are.
Yes, you have indeed demonstrated, yourself, that last point.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 26, 2012 - 4:53PM
#22
|
|
|
If I am correct this is not a call to recreate 3.X... It is a call to the developers to keep the 3.X philosophy and it's customer base in mind even after one of the old schoolish advocates has left.
Which is only a threat if you think they're lying when they say that they want everyone who has ever played D&D to be happy playing Next.
I don't think that they are liars... I just think that they are human and are more likely to promote their own agenda rather than understanding someone elses viewpoint. I actually stated that in my post a little further down, but you made a selective cut of my quote in order to more easily be able to convey your own point of view instead of understanding mine.
It is so much easier to see one own's point of view than someone elses.
Q.E.D.
That is just your opinion. I disagree. 
Resident Socialist and Undying Troublemaker
Martyr of Section 1, 2 and 4
Original Troll of the House of Trolls
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 26, 2012 - 4:59PM
#23
|
Date Joined:
May 19, 2011
|
If I am correct this is not a call to recreate 3.X... It is a call to the developers to keep the 3.X philosophy and it's customer base in mind even after one of the old schoolish advocates has left.
Which is only a threat if you think they're lying when they say that they want everyone who has ever played D&D to be happy playing Next.
I don't think that they are liars... I just think that they are human and are more likely to promote their own agenda rather than understanding someone elses viewpoint. I actually stated that in my post a little further down, but you made a selective cut of my quote in order to more easily be able to convey your own point of view instead of understanding mine.
It is so much easier to see one own's point of view than someone elses.
Q.E.D.
That is just your opinion. I disagree.
He disagrees with someone's opinion! He's a witch!
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 26, 2012 - 5:19PM
#24
|
Date Joined:
Jan 21, 2009
|
I doubt Monte was the sole representative of a 3.x mindset in Next. I have a feeling that even if we've got mostly newer voices left, Next will still legitimatley try to reach for the roots of the game.
A lot of the perception problem with 4th is that older editions folks saw it as more a revolution or clean break than as an evolution of what had come before (Somethign 3rd didn't suffer from quite as badly). Next wants to be that evolution of the 1-3 continuity, but at this point 4th has too much of a following to abandon it entirely.
The result is, I think, that Next is going to look a lot like 4th should have looked like (from a marketing perspective at least. You may think 4th is a perfect and flawless system but it clearly had some crucual problems with marketability) -- we'll be able to see an unbroken thread dating back to OD&D, but at the same time it's going to incorporate a lot of newer ideas.
I hope you're right.
I certainly don't "distrust" the designer's intentions, but it's not irrational to be worried about whether or not they'll actually accomplish the goal, for whatever reason. Monte left because of "differences of opinion". For those of us who trust Monte, it leaves a worried feeling about just what those differences were.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 26, 2012 - 6:38PM
#25
|
|
|
I really, really don't understand why people assume these things have to be mutually exclusive.
why can't people take the developers at their word about what they're trying to do
Walls hurt when you smack your head into them. Repeating the process doens't make it hurt less.
:D
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 - 6:42PM
#26
|
Date Joined:
Mar 14, 2012
|
I doubt Monte was the sole representative of a 3.x mindset in Next. I have a feeling that even if we've got mostly newer voices left, Next will still legitimatley try to reach for the roots of the game.
A lot of the perception problem with 4th is that older editions folks saw it as more a revolution or clean break than as an evolution of what had come before (Somethign 3rd didn't suffer from quite as badly). Next wants to be that evolution of the 1-3 continuity, but at this point 4th has too much of a following to abandon it entirely.
The result is, I think, that Next is going to look a lot like 4th should have looked like (from a marketing perspective at least. You may think 4th is a perfect and flawless system but it clearly had some crucual problems with marketability) -- we'll be able to see an unbroken thread dating back to OD&D, but at the same time it's going to incorporate a lot of newer ideas.
I hope you're right.
I certainly don't "distrust" the designer's intentions, but it's not irrational to be worried about whether or not they'll actually accomplish the goal, for whatever reason. Monte left because of "differences of opinion". For those of us who trust Monte, it leaves a worried feeling about just what those differences were.
He didn't like the donuts in the break room...
So is the point of this thread to make a 3rd Edition Martyr so that you can hold it up when things don't go your way and say "If only he was here we would be happy"... why not just adapt and enjoy. I liked 3rd edition ok but I like 4e just as well if not slightly better. Talking about how they might be lying to you and pushing different agendas is idiotic. It is a company that must sell a product. If there product is crap than we wont buy it and they will change it and sell us a new product. That is how it works. don't like it? Keep playing 3e (If 3e books sell more than new stuff coming out I promise you they will make more stuff like 3e... again they want to make money). If you don't like there new stuff go play something else I hear Pathfinder is open for buisnes. She is a little rougher than our old favorite D&D but she can still give you that nerdgasum your looking for.
Tl;dr - this is a dumb debate.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 26, 2012 - 6:56PM
#27
|
|
|
I've got a few things to say
1- if he weighs the same as a duck he must be a witch!!!
2- I'm convinced WotC is lying to me.
3- I very much dislike 3e and beyond. Yet I understand that they will obviously have huge impact on 5e.
4- I'm still here hoping against hope that they come out with something I can get behind. The fact that they're actively reaching out to the fanbase for input (something they've failed at before) and seem to really be doing their homework has me optimistic.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 26, 2012 - 7:37PM
#28
|
Date Joined:
Jan 18, 2012
|
Trying to seperate players out into tribes is just pointless edition warring.
There were things I liked from 3rd edition, there were things I liked from 4th edition. I prefer 4th to 3rd in general but there were specific things in 3rd that really think would improve 5e.I certainly have fond memories of 2e, and 1e holds a rosy nostalic glow. My ideal game would be a mix of all previous editions.
Of course the goal of the designers is to make something that is a basic archetypical bare-bones D&D rule-set that will be instantly familiar to players of any edition, with options available to make your character internally like a character from any past edition while being able to be played at the same table as any other 5e character. So you could have a complicated hybrid psion/bard with healing surges and boostable psionics in the same party as a 1e I-hit-it-hard barbarian and still all be having a great time.
Personally I am really looking forward to seeing what new innovations that we've never seen before appear.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 26, 2012 - 7:45PM
#29
|
|
|
Hello,
With the departure of Monte Cook from the design team, I would like to express my support for the 3.X design philosophy and I hope it will be part of 5e. If not in mechanics at least in spirit.
Other 3.X fans who think the same please express your support by posting here!
Those who do not like 3.X, I respect your opinion and hope the 4e spirit will also be part of 5e, but please start your own thread instead of thread crapping this one. Thank you! 
I like portions of 3.x, however there are a couple of things I would NOT like to see in the 5e.
- Ubiquitous crafting of magical items, Magical items are rare and special, I would like the designers to take a much more AD&D approach to magical items.
- Focus on Min/Max, Munchkin-play, Char-op - The game I hope is NOT about maximizing mechanical effectiveness.
- Monster design - 4e has this in the bag on all editions. It's easy to scale monsters, there are pre-designed "classes" of monsters already setup, and the monsters don't have to suffer with using the same magic as the party-members.
I don't really mind swapping out high and low rolls. One thing in my group is that the players coming from 3.x/4e to 2e are trying to roll high (and sometimes the percentile is read as 9-0 instead of 0-9) it is funny to watch the reaction when you tell them the LOW roll was what they wanted...keeps them on their toes... Also, I really want the "to hit" number to actually reside on the D20. None of this rolling a 39 vs DC 41 or that bloat...you may as well not roll the D20 if you have a +21 modifier. I am more of a fan of offering bonus rolls/dice rather than endlessly climbing BAB's and the like.
"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
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 26, 2012 - 11:14PM
#30
|
Date Joined:
Jun 29, 2008
|
If I am correct this is not a call to recreate 3.X... It is a call to the developers to keep the 3.X philosophy and it's customer base in mind even after one of the old schoolish advocates has left.
Which is only a threat if you think they're lying when they say that they want everyone who has ever played D&D to be happy playing Next.
I don't think that they are liars... I just think that they are human and are more likely to promote their own agenda rather than understanding someone elses viewpoint. I actually stated that in my post a little further down, but you made a selective cut of my quote in order to more easily be able to convey your own point of view instead of understanding mine.
It is so much easier to see one own's point of view than someone elses.
Q.E.D.
Oh, so now you think that I'm being dishonest through selective quoting?
Really, can't anyone take anything at face value? Respond to what I said, not what you assume my motivations are.
Yes, you have indeed demonstrated, yourself, that last point.
Actually, I did respond to what you said... it was in the first sentence... the second sentence contained the guess that you had missed this in my earlier post due to selective reading. But you might have missed that first sentence due to selective reading.... or bad luck... or that you did not like the answer... or any number of reasons.
No matter what, it still keeps proving my point.
And yes... I am also human and prone to the same mistakes. Which is why I want the team to recognize this danger so their team don't become too homogeneous.
The Character Initiative
Show
Every time you abuse the system you enforce limitations.
Every time the system is limited we lose options.
Breaking an RPG is like cheating in a computer game.
As a DM you are the punkbuster of your table.
Dare to say no to abusers.
Make players build characters, not characters out of builds.
|
|
|
