|
4 years ago ::
Jun 10, 2009 - 1:16PM
#1091
|
Date Joined:
Jan 22, 2008
|
Because they screw up at even the most basic things lesser companies can't afford not to do right - but they get away with everything because they have the most loyal customer base imaginable. I just don't think they deserve this loyalty. If I screwed up even once like they do regularly, I'd be living on welfare.
DB
Maybe because they publish a good product? I mean seriously get over it.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jun 10, 2009 - 1:17PM
#1092
|
|
|
Which are?
DB
Graphical layout vs content layout
Character creation options vs character options
A "misstep" vs an intential design choice
Amount of content regarding complexity of rules vs simplicity
formulaic vs descriptive layouts
text-book layout vs an evocative layout
Like I said, I wouldn't know where to start.
D&D 4E Herald and M:tG Rules Advisor I expect posters to follow the Code of Conduct, use Basic Etiquette, and avoid Poor Logic. If you don't follow these guidelines, I consider you to be disrespectful to everyone on these forums. If you respond to me without following these guidelines, I consider it a personal attack. I grew up in a bilingual household, which means I am familiar with the difficulties in adopting a different vocabulary and grammar. That doesn't bother me. Persistent use of bad capitalization, affirming the consequent, and flaming bother me a great deal. Rule that I would change: 204.1b
Show
204.1b Some effects change an object’s card type, supertype, or subtype but specify that the object retains a prior card type, supertype, or subtype. In such cases, all the object’s prior card types, supertypes, and subtypes are retained. This rule applies to effects that use the phrase “in addition to its types” or that state that something is “still a [card type].” Some effects state that an object becomes an “artifact creature”; these effects also allow the object to retain all of its prior card types and subtypes.
"Eight Edition Rules Update"
We eventually decided not to change this template, because players are used to “becomes an artifact creature,” and like it much better. Players were used to Combat on the Stack, but you got rid of that because it was unintuitive. The only phrase needed is "in addition to its types"; the others are misleading and unintuitive.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jun 10, 2009 - 1:26PM
#1093
|
Date Joined:
May 26, 2005
|
If this thought is so revolutionarily evil as you're making it out to be right now, then I'm wondering why in 30 years there hasn't been at least a single protester's march on the streets demanding the inclusion in the PHB.
No, of course they didn't promise more than eight. Never claimed that, either *sigh* (And what's playable and what's not is another matter entirely and not the focus of this discussion.)
No, they didn't, and I've never claimed that, either. Would you please, please, please with sugar on top apply context? Just a little?
DB
To your first, most people don't get THAT bent out of shape about there not being magic items in the PHB. But I do remember people mentioning that it would be a good idea in the forum discussions, or at least saying that if players have the ability to make magic items they need some examples of the early stuff.
To the second, then what has you in such a snit? If the big thing is just that you liked the classes/races that weren't introduced in the first PHB I'm sorry but that isn't WotC's problem. As for playable it is somewhat relevant at least in terms of whether or not it's a good product.
Third, what make the bard and druid such big sticking points for you, as well as, apparently, the gnome.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jun 10, 2009 - 1:33PM
#1094
|
Date Joined:
May 26, 2005
|
We'll have to sort things out a bit. We've been mostly talking about the symptoms here (about which, as I've stated before, I don't even care), and I admit, I allowed myself to get carried away discussing the symptoms although I just care about the principle. On the other hand, I've stated several times that I don't care that the bard wasn't introduced in the PHB. I just don't care. At all. Likewise I've expressly stated that the guys at WotC can do with their property whatever the heck they please. I just voiced my amazement at the willingness of so many people to take WotC's "We didn't have the time" excuse (come on, seriously!) at face value and to defend it, whereas they probably wouldn't accept this "We didn't have the time" nonsense from other companies. This isn't about the question whether the customers playing bards, druids, gnomes or what have you were entitled to get these options in the PHB, this isn't about the question if such an expectation was justified even though WotC carefully avoided promising them. It's about the refusal of some people to consider the possibility that the "time" excuse just might have been hogwash, as if no one at WotC could ever be so business-minded to deliberately exclude these options only to have something to promote PHB2 with - as if that was totally improbable, in contrast to the time issue.
DB
Oh sure, I recognize that at least some of it was also to ensure that there would be a stronger incentive for people to buy PHB2. I'd also guess though that time was some of it, as was their apparent format of one new power source per PHB that is largely self contained there, so *shrug* no biggie. You go on and on about how they screwed up, where did they screw up exactly? Book format is good, once I was used to the new mechanics I like it by and large. The new format seems much better for groups and internal balance. The best part so far is really that now when my group does houserules we do them more for a playstyle change rather than a patch because a rule is clearly broken.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jun 10, 2009 - 1:34PM
#1095
|
Date Joined:
Apr 28, 2009
|
Because they screw up at even the most basic things lesser companies can't afford not to do right - but they get away with everything because they have the most loyal customer base imaginable. I just don't think they deserve this loyalty. If I screwed up even once like they do regularly, I'd be living on welfare.
DB
I'd have to say the whole quality product keeps me loyal to WoTC as a company. Oh and the fact that I love 4E. Just because you're dissatisfied with their product doesn't mean everyone is. As long as they continue to keep coming out with quality supplements for 4E I'll remain a loyal customer.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jun 10, 2009 - 1:58PM
#1096
|
Date Joined:
Aug 25, 2006
|
Graphical layout vs content layout
I didn't even go into detail there. Then again, I pointed out I'm not a graphic designer.
Character creation options vs character options
Uhm... I can't remember even talking about those.
A "misstep" vs an intential design choice
I'm not sure what part of what I said this is related to, but anyway: That's a false assumption because...?
Amount of content regarding complexity of rules vs simplicity
Again, didn't even mention any of that.
formulaic vs descriptive layouts
Dito.
text-book layout vs an evocative layout
Dito.
Like I said, I'm not following you.
DB
What I think about 4e? Well, WotC pulled a Lucas on me and put too many Ewoks and Gungans in my Far, Far Away.
Remember, you read it here first: the first 5e review! (http://www.gamegrene.com/node/971)
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jun 10, 2009 - 2:06PM
#1097
|
Date Joined:
Aug 25, 2006
|
To your first, most people don't get THAT bent out of shape about there not being magic items in the PHB.
What's with this "bent out of shape" nonsense? I try to not ignore posts directed at me, so I have to write a lot of text. That doesn't mean I'm losing sleep over any of this. I'm just trying to be polite.
If the big thing is just that you liked the classes/races that weren't introduced in the first PHB I'm sorry but that isn't WotC's problem.
See the next posting. (And I haven't even mentioned playability.)
You go on and on about how they screwed up, where did they screw up exactly?
Actually this was the first time I mentioned that, that's not exactly going on and on about it. But to present a few examples: The plan for 3.5 when they were still designing 3.0, the promises for 3e tools, Master Tools, the inelegant PR of denying 4e to the last day on this very board and then revealing it over at EnWorld, this message board that needs hours of almost daily maintenance as if this was still 1995, Gleemax, the dubious business model of deliberately withholding material and making vague promises that it might get covered in Dragon - which is (of course IMHO) discernably inferior to Paizo's Dragon since what little material it offers (apart from editorials, self-promotion and more stuff that's useless for gaming) was once available on the website for free - in order to get people to subscribe, promoting 4e with vaporware they've officially (but relatively quietly) cancelled by now, coming up with a "one setting per year" business model, changing their top selling setting beyond recognition in order to boost short-term sales since long-term sales were out of the picture now, promising online setting support and not delivering very much of that, withdrawing all their material from online vendors with short notice and next to no PR to the customer...
All of this resulted in varying degrees of infuriation - which could be foreseen from a mile away. In other words: Sorry, but I don't think they're very good at much of what they're doing.
DB
What I think about 4e? Well, WotC pulled a Lucas on me and put too many Ewoks and Gungans in my Far, Far Away.
Remember, you read it here first: the first 5e review! (http://www.gamegrene.com/node/971)
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jun 10, 2009 - 2:24PM
#1098
|
|
|
What's with this "bent out of shape" nonsense? I try to not ignore posts directed at me, so I have to write a lot of text. That doesn't mean I'm losing sleep over any of this. I'm just trying to be polite.
From this writing here, one could easily get that you're a little too long without sleep 
He is not talking about you writing much, he is talking about the absurd idea of a protest march for "Magic Items Into the PHB!"
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!
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jun 10, 2009 - 2:35PM
#1099
|
Date Joined:
Aug 25, 2006
|
From this writing here, one could easily get that you're a little too long without sleep
I actually am, but that has to do with my job, not with this message board
He is not talking about you writing much, he is talking about the absurd idea of a protest march for "Magic Items Into the PHB!"
Ever heard of that little thing called irony? 
DB
What I think about 4e? Well, WotC pulled a Lucas on me and put too many Ewoks and Gungans in my Far, Far Away.
Remember, you read it here first: the first 5e review! (http://www.gamegrene.com/node/971)
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jun 10, 2009 - 2:38PM
#1100
|
Date Joined:
Jan 22, 2008
|
Actually this was the first time I mentioned that, that's not exactly going on and on about it. But to present a few examples: The plan for 3.5 when they were still designing 3.0, the promises for 3e tools, Master Tools, the inelegant PR of denying 4e to the last day on this very board and then revealing it over at EnWorld, this message board that needs hours of almost daily maintenance as if this was still 1995, Gleemax, the dubious business model of deliberately withholding material and making vague promises that it might get covered in Dragon - which is (of course IMHO) discernably inferior to Paizo's Dragon since what little material it offers (apart from editorials, self-promotion and more stuff that's useless for gaming) was once available on the website for free - in order to get people to subscribe, promoting 4e with vaporware they've officially (but relatively quietly) cancelled by now, coming up with a "one setting per year" business model, changing their top selling setting beyond recognition in order to boost short-term sales since long-term sales were out of the picture now, promising online setting support and not delivering very much of that, withdrawing all their material from online vendors with short notice and next to no PR to the customer...
All of this resulted in varying degrees of enragement - which could be foreseen from a mile away. In other words: Sorry, but I don't think they're very good at much of what they're doing.
DB
Um Pazio was completley inferior to the current mags at least in my opinion pazzio did nothing original it was all just variations on stuff WOTC had already done now we get real content of new monsters class previews and playtests as well as soon a completley new class exclusive to dragon. Forgotten realms needed to be changed it had too much lore behind it too many npcs. I dont care that they said they werent working on 4e to me thats a duh of course your not going to say your working on the next version until its almost ready you want people to buy the last few books for the current eddition to me thats just comon sense. I really dont see why your so upset they are a company trying to make money they make a very good product.
|
|
|
