|
1 year ago ::
Dec 15, 2011 - 8:09AM
#71
|
Date Joined:
May 13, 2009
|
I'm not saying Monte did (though someone can probably link to him saying the thing about trap options, which totally qualifies).
I'm saying many people say people who point out the objective flaws in 3.5e are "hating on 3.5e" when really they're just pointing out things that didn't work and have a problem with people saying those things did in fact work. Especially when they then point out they used houserules to fix the problem, and don't see the inherent flaw with that reasoning.
edit: that was fast...
Epic Dungeon Master Want to give your players a kingdom of their own? I made a 4e rule system to make it happen! Your Kingdom awaits!Update 5th Sep 2011: Added a sample kingdom, as well as sample of play.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Dec 15, 2011 - 8:13AM
#72
|
Date Joined:
Aug 15, 2007
|
So who is going to become the First 5E Avenger?? What happened to all of those 4E Avengers?? 
HAND OF KARSUS!  
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Dec 15, 2011 - 8:18AM
#73
|
Date Joined:
Aug 30, 2011
|
This just smacks of hasbro business sense. (Which I blieve to be non-existant).
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Dec 15, 2011 - 8:24AM
#74
|
|
|
I've removed content from this thread because Offensive Language is a violation of the Code of Conduct. You can review the Code of Conduct here: www.wizards.com/Company/About.aspx?x=wz_...Thanks for being polite about it and furthering the discussion! Also, please don't quote offensive content, please just report it! Thanks!
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Dec 15, 2011 - 8:30AM
#75
|
|
|
Quite frankly, unless someone can post a quote where Monte says he actively made bad design choices and then passed them off as features, it's just another bunch of internet hearsay.
Have fun and forgive him. www.montecook.com/cgi-bin/page.cgi?mc_lo...
Read it. He doesn't come close to saying what you think he does.
Kalex the Omen Dungeonmaster Extraordinaire Concerning Player Rules Bias
Show
Gaining victory through rules bias is a hollow victory and they know it.
The argument goes, that some idiot at the table might claim that because there is a "default" that is the only true way to play D&D. An idiotic misconception that should be quite easy to disprove just by reading the rules, coming to these forums, or sending a quick note off to Customer Support and sharing the inevitable response with the group. BTW, I'm not just talking about Next when I say this. Of course, D&D has always been this way since at least the late 70's when I began playing.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Dec 15, 2011 - 8:34AM
#76
|
Date Joined:
Apr 11, 2010
|
This just smacks of hasbro business sense. (Which I blieve to be non-existant).
Hasbro's business sense kinda leaves me confused as well. Remember Transformers? Remember how they made a ton of money off of it? And how? By selling toys? No, with movies.
If I were Hasbro, I would be mining the D&D worlds for good story ideas to turn into cartoons, and then seeing which take off. When one does, I would let it run a few years to give it more mainstream appeal and then start churning out the blockbusters. They would make billions. With a 'B'. They already have Drizzt, one of the best selling characters in recent fiction; they should give him the Harry Potter treatment and then start buying gold-plated wheelbarrows for all the cash they'll make. The comic book companies seem to have figured this out; they are putting out movies faster than ever, and raking it in. What's Hasbro doing worried about employee salaries? A company's job is to make money, not save it.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Dec 15, 2011 - 8:37AM
#77
|
Date Joined:
Aug 17, 2007
|
Man, you really blew this article out of proportion.
1) Saying that the game was designed to have some options be better than others does not equate to "I deliberatley made a bad game." 4E has all kinds of options that are clearly better than others, but yet no 4E fanboys accuse it of having an "ivory tower" design. 4E linguistics is the equivalent of 3E toughness.
2) He wasn't the only one that decide to make the game in this way. It was the whole design team.
3) He said in hindsight it probably could have been done better. Gee, learning from past experience makes him such a horrible preson with questionable ethics.
All you did was confirm that the 4E fanboys on this forum are just waiting to bash anything or anyone connected with 3.0/3.5. It's been three and a half years. Get over it already!
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Dec 15, 2011 - 8:43AM
#78
|
|
|
They did the same thing to Noonan and a couple other people just before Christmas 2 years ago, I believe it was. Really sorry to see Baker go, but hope he continues to contribute to D&D especially since Wizards doesn't have much of a stranglehold on the market anymore.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Dec 15, 2011 - 8:44AM
#79
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2010
|
All you did was confirm that the 4E fanboys on this forum are just waiting to bash anything or anyone connected with 3.0/3.5. It's been three and a half years. Get over it already!
First off, that's simply untrue.
Second, you say "get over it" as if it's done, finished, that-battle-was-won-already. The concern among those in disagreement with you are about what's coming in the future. They don't want it to include what they see as the bad aspects of 3.5. That's an entirely valid concern, and you have absolutely no business telling them not to express it.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Dec 15, 2011 - 8:46AM
#80
|
Date Joined:
May 13, 2009
|
1) Saying that the game was designed to have some options be better than others does not equate to "I deliberatley made a bad game."
Actually, it does say he deliberately made bad design decisions. Especially since this is a cooperative game.
4E has all kinds of options that are clearly better than others, but yet no 4E fanboys accuse it of having an "ivory tower" design. 4E linguistics is the equivalent of 3E toughness.
That's because it's not a conscious design decision to include it simply because it's bad. If they were to go an print feats that are worse in every way then existing feats on purpose then those "4e fanboys" would quickly reel out the very same arguments.
Currently, Linguist is bad but it's not bad on purpose. There is a very important difference. (That said, it's a crappy feat and its existance is not one of 4e's brighter moments.)
Also, if there's anyone overreacting here, it seems to be you, Talok. You seem to be the most emotionally charged responder in the thread.
Epic Dungeon Master Want to give your players a kingdom of their own? I made a 4e rule system to make it happen! Your Kingdom awaits!Update 5th Sep 2011: Added a sample kingdom, as well as sample of play.
|
|
|
