|
2 years ago ::
Feb 15, 2011 - 6:18PM
#21
|
|
|
A good and important article, but it feels like 'too little too late'. This is the kind of 'damage control', for lack of a better term, that needed to be said* when Essentials was first released.
*Actually, I think it was, it just needed to be said louder.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Feb 15, 2011 - 6:32PM
#22
|
Date Joined:
May 14, 2007
|
Too little too late? I'll to disagree with you there because this feel like a breath of fresh air, and after cancelations of several books and all the arguing over essentials, I like hearing some sincere words from a man you know cares about the game he helps to craft.
Wizards of the Coast suffers from an image problem with many D&D fans right now, but Mike Mearls has good reputation with a lot of gamers I've talked to. He crafted my favorite version of 3e, Iron Heroes.
The whole 3e vs. 4e vs. Pathfinder debates has played out, and its time for the discussion to take a new direction. Instead of hearing people talk about what they don't like about fourth edition, I'd rather hear what those who don't like fourth edition discuss what they loved about previous editions.
D&D has a lot of history, and for God's sake, the game survived the demise of TSR. Just a few canceled books had people predicting Wizards wouldn't put out of a fifth edition or calling for Paizo to take over the franchise.
The sky isn't falling. D&D isn't dying. It's time to breath people.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Feb 15, 2011 - 6:55PM
#23
|
Date Joined:
Oct 21, 2009
|
I like the 'can't we all just get along' message of the article. Too bad it won't do a bit of good. Far, far too many people seem to be enraged by the very thought of other people enjoying a version of the game that they don't.
Well, as long as we don't sink to their level and engage them in argument, they will eventually get bored and go away. I think that was part of what Mr Mearls was saying: it takes two to argue. We can't stop the angry people from posting angry posts about how this or that is ruining everything, but we can stop ourselves from turning a rant into a full blown row.
Ari, definitely concerning "edition wars" I can see your point and would even agree with you. But saying that not dialoguing with people who are upset, in the hopes that they will just go away because it takes two to argue, is at best a supra-optimist naivete, and at worse, a blatant desire to ignore dissenting voices.Ignoring angry people on these forums might keep YOU from feeling like you are battling ignorant bigots, but it ultimately alienates customers if Wizards does the same, and that is bad for business and the bottom line.Even if you don't like them, try to keep in mind that many of the "ranters" are folks that either currently or previously subscribed to DDI, and have spent a large amount of money supporting the developers of one of their favorite games. Based on the fact that they are customers, they have the right to have a voice, for good or for bad. And I am sure that WoTC is listening to them, and their negative feedback, even if the rank and file forumites would rather do without it.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Feb 15, 2011 - 7:03PM
#24
|
|
|
kumbayah
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Feb 15, 2011 - 7:22PM
#25
|
|
|
i look forward to reading the actual column- it should offer soem insights as to what the designer liked and disliked about earlier editions and might want to bring back/change in the future. Also, old stories about DND are always worth reading... hope we get some personal stories and anecdotes
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Feb 15, 2011 - 7:31PM
#26
|
Date Joined:
Jul 23, 2008
|
Since the topic is Legends and Lore I would prefer to see articles about previous editions and the changes that took place. One of my favorite monthly articles is the Alumni (or should it be was; is Legends & Lore replacing Alumni?).
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Feb 15, 2011 - 9:34PM
#27
|
Date Joined:
Jun 20, 2009
|
Damon, perhaps my "Kidding. Truly." comment you omitted from your quote escaped your notice. I would like you to edit your reply because taking the quote out of context (trimming it as you did) gives the impression that I was saying that Pathfinder is not D&D. Which I was not.
Done.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Feb 15, 2011 - 9:46PM
#28
|
Date Joined:
Jun 20, 2009
|
I feel pretty bad for Mike. He's being put in a really rough situation here.
I don't. He took a community that was already divided at the start and has bisected it twice. That's not a winning move.
...
"bisected... twice" refers to Essentials and Fortune Cards.
I don't think Mearls had a choice. I think Mearls was told, explicitly, to create a ".5" edition for 4e, and he said "no" but in the end had to compromise with Essentials. I think Fortune Cards were similar: he was operating under a directive to incorporate a CCG element into D&D, and Fortune Cards were the least damaging way he could think of to do so.
We need to stop blaming Mike for this stuff: let's remember, he was a part of the team that brought us 4e to begin with. The blame more fairly rests with Greg Leeds, Hasbro's WotC CEO.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Feb 15, 2011 - 10:38PM
#29
|
|
|
I feel pretty bad for Mike. He's being put in a really rough situation here.
I don't. He took a community that was already divided at the start and has bisected it twice. That's not a winning move.
...
"bisected... twice" refers to Essentials and Fortune Cards.
I don't think Mearls had a choice. I think Mearls was told, explicitly, to create a ".5" edition for 4e, and he said "no" but in the end had to compromise with Essentials. I think Fortune Cards were similar: he was operating under a directive to incorporate a CCG element into D&D, and Fortune Cards were the least damaging way he could think of to do so.
We need to stop blaming Mike for this stuff: let's remember, he was a part of the team that brought us 4e to begin with. The blame more fairly rests with Greg Leeds, Hasbro's WotC CEO.
If I was one for conspiracy theories, I'd buy a slice of yours.
I think that's exactly what's going on. 3.5 was massively profitable but a repeat could be brand-destroying. It was a cute trick WotC could only pull once. WotC (and Hasbro) knows that the brand needs a shot in the arm every 2 years or so, or risk becoming like bloated and drowning TSR, and WotC came out with too many books to quickly. So they had to implement the 4 year bump in 2 years. So the "4.5" edition or whatever it was going to be called had to be released now.
I don't blame Mearls. I think he's a fine guy. I blame corporate assumptions, and a bad economy.
Essentials zigged, when I wanted to continue zagging.
Roll dice, not cars.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Feb 16, 2011 - 4:12AM
#30
|
Date Joined:
Oct 12, 2005
|
I thought it was a great article
It's sometimes funny, despite having 30 some odd books for 2nd edition and 45 some odd books for 3/3.5 sitting on my shelves (and I greatly enjoyed and currently enjoy both of those editions) I find myself sometimes trashing those systems just to defend 4e.
Which is silly. All the systems have flaws, all the systems have merits.
I love 4e. Are there some elements I miss from 2nd and 3rd? Of course. If I was going to DM either of those editions are there things I'd like to bring in from 4e? You betcha.
Going forward I will avoid Edition Wars, if someone says something wrong about an edition, I may correct it, but I'm not going to do a version x vs. version y argument anymore.
Welcome to ZomboniLand - My D&D Blog http://zomboniland.blogspot.com/
|
|
|
