|
1 year ago ::
Dec 31, 2011 - 10:06AM
#41
|
Date Joined:
Jan 15, 2009
|
Love how extremist non-cooperative players are assumed the norm.. [Edited]
Moderated by
ORC_Tomorrow
on Dec 31, 2011 - 02:52PM
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Dec 31, 2011 - 10:08AM
#42
|
Date Joined:
Oct 22, 2007
|
Your point about making it bear as little resemblance to 4E as possible is interesting; I hadn't quite thought of it that way.
Thought Experiment: You're Wizards of the Coast. Your boss (Hasbro) is glaring in your direction, because one of your divisions is soaking up huge expenses and not paying out like it should. You look around at the RPG industry and see... Pathfinder, sitting in your King-of-the-Hill throne; the one you've occupied for fifteen years. You stop and think: why did that happen? Well, we know it happened after we released 4e... and Pathfinder is based on the OGL that we designed for 3rd edition.
Your boss (Hasbro) tells you that your Next Big Thing had better march right back up that hill and shove Paizo off the cliff or else... so after long and careful deliberation, you decide to (re)hire Monte Cook to be the lead designer on Project Next Big Thing.
Why did you make that choice?
I can only see one possible answer to that question.
@Zappy:
I really hope you're wrong about 5E. Unfortunately I too have been reading L&L and I'm afraid you're right.
(I see they still haven't bothered to fix the multi-quote stupidity in the forums...)
I started making these kinds of predictions a year and a half ago when we first heard about Essentials. So far I've been pretty well right. People act like Wizards' activity is some big surprise... but it's not, if you're paying attention. There's no possible way the ideas Cook has been spitballing in recent L&L articles aren't ideas he's considering using for The Inevitable 5th Edition (from now on I'm capitalizing it like that. Please read it with appropriate emphasis. Reading it in Morgan Freeman's voice is also acceptable). I just hope he's smart enough to look beyond his stupidly biased polls in search of an idea of what his consumers want.
I'm not wish-listing when I make predictions like the above, and I'm not gloom-and-dooming, either. I'm simply forecasting; I'm building predictions based on the trends I observe. Yes, there's some extrapolation involved--and I don't mean to be as arrogant as I'm about to sound--but I've been right more often than not so far.
4e at launch didn't completely omgwtfpwn the competition when it launched, and a lot of people made a lot of noise about how it was "too different" from past editions (I remain convinced these are people who have clearly forgotten what editions prior to 3.0 were like), so Wizards tries to shoehorn "classic" feel into 4e with Essentials. That fails even more spectacularly: not only does it not, by and large, draw off all of the people who has switched to Pathfinder (etc.), but is also pisses off the people who liked 4e (like me), who suddenly stop buying more books.
At that point, Wizards goes into panic mode because omgi dnot kno wwhat 2 do!!1! Whip-pan to a dusty old copy of a 3.X book gathering cobwebs in some corner of someone's cubicle. A lightbulb goes off in Wizards' collective head: 3rd Edition was a HUEG success! That's what'll save us! And they can't dive for their checkbook fast enough to offer Cook however much money he wants to step in and right the ship because the last game he designed for them was, like, totally, like, super-popular, right? [Yeah... in 1998. Pff. --m4ki]
Given that kind of a climate? Sadly, I see only one way The Inevitable 5th Edition can turn out. So far Cook's half-mad screeching and cawing in recent L&L articles supports my theory. We'll see if that changes, but I'm not holding my breath.
-m4ki; one down, one to go "Retro is not new.
Retro-fit is not new."
--Seeker95,
on why I won't be playing DDN
| DDN Metrics (0-10) | enthusiasm: 1 | confidence in design: -3 | desire to play: 0 | Sticking with 4e?: Yep. | Better Options: IKRPG Mk II |
The Five Things D&D Next Absolutely Must Not Do:
Show
1. Imbalanced gameplay. Any and all characters must be able to contribute equally both in combat and out of combat at all levels of play. If the Fighters are linear and the Wizards quadratic, I walk.
2. Hardcore simulationist approach. D&D is a game about heroic fantasy. I'm weak and useless enough in real life; I play RPGs for a change of pace. If the only reason a rule exists is because "that's how it's supposed to be", I walk. I don't want a game that "simulates" real life, I want a game that simulates heroic fantasy.
3. Worshipping at false idols (AKA Sacred Cows). If the only reason a rule exists is "it's always been that way", I walk. Now to be clear, I have no problem with some things not changing; my issue is with retaining bad idea simply for the sake of nostalgia.
4. DM vs. players. If the game encourages "gotcha!" moments or treats the DM and players as enemies, adversaries, or problems to be overcome, I walk.
5. Rules for the sake of rules. The only thing I want rules for is the things I can't do sitting around a table with my friends. If the rules try to step on my ability to roleplay the character I want to roleplay, I walk. Furthermore, the rules serve to facilitate gameplay, not to simulate the world.
NOTE: Items in red have been violated.
Chris Perkins' DM Survival Tips:
Show
1. When in doubt, wing it.
2. Keep the story moving. Go with the flow.
3. Sometimes things make the best characters.
4. Always give players lots of things to do.
5. Wherever possible, say ‘yes.’
6. Cheating is largely unnecessary.
7. Don't be afraid to give the characters a fun new toy.
8. Don't get in the way of a good players exchange.
9. Avoid talking too much.
10. Save some details for later.
11. Be transparent.
12. Don't show all your cards.
Words to live by.
Quotes From People Smarter Than Me:
Show
"Essentials zigged, when I wanted to continue zagging..." -Foxface on Essentials
"Servicing a diverse fan base with an RPG ruleset - far from being the mandate for 'open design space' and a cavalier attitude towards balance - requires creating a system that /works/, with minimal fuss, for a wide variety of play styles, not just from one group to the next, but at the same table." -Tony_Vargas on design
"Mearls' and Cook's stated intent to produce an edition that fans of all previous editions (and Pathfinder) will like more than their current favourite edition is laudable. But it is also, IMO, completely unrealistic. It's like people who pray for world peace: I might share their overall aims, but I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for them to succeed. When they talk in vague terms about what they'd like to do in this new edition, I mostly find myself thinking 'hey, that sounds cool, assuming they can pull it off', but almost every time they've said something specific about actual mechanics, I've found myself wincing and shaking my head in disbelief and/or disgust, either straight away or after thinking about the obvious implications for half a minute." -Duskweaver on D&D Next
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Dec 31, 2011 - 10:16AM
#43
|
Date Joined:
Nov 13, 2011
|
it's always the "entitled players" and never "entitled dm".
i find it cute.
annoying, but cute.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Dec 31, 2011 - 10:17AM
#44
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2002
|
Player rules ignorance is temporary, and, if the player DMs or owns the DMG, may never occur. As a DM who does a little design, I know the rules better than all four of the people who have DMed 4E for me, and there is no such issue. Back in 2E, when I gamed on a regular basis, all but one of the people in the group had and knew the DMG, and we had a blast. I can't see how it can be expected to change anything outside of creepy psychological manipulation. Do we really need to decieve DMs and players to get them to enjoy the game?
I also don't see the sense of entitlement, unless it's a generational/regional thing. However, I suspect it's mostly an individual personality thing. That said, it's absolutely possible to play a Ravenloft-appropriate serious pixie invoker, or a light-hearted ununununundead. The Dark Sun example is more appropriate, and of all the dozens of people I've gamed with, I don't think any one of them would fight any DM on that.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Dec 31, 2011 - 10:18AM
#45
|
Date Joined:
Oct 22, 2007
|
it's always the "entitled players" and never "entitled dm".
i find it cute.
annoying, but cute.
The fact that either of those concepts exists stongly imprinted enough on the gamer community's collective consciousness that we have a shorthand for it is telling, don't you think?
[Edited]
Moderated by
ORC_Tomorrow
on Dec 31, 2011 - 10:51AM
-m4ki; one down, one to go "Retro is not new.
Retro-fit is not new."
--Seeker95,
on why I won't be playing DDN
| DDN Metrics (0-10) | enthusiasm: 1 | confidence in design: -3 | desire to play: 0 | Sticking with 4e?: Yep. | Better Options: IKRPG Mk II |
The Five Things D&D Next Absolutely Must Not Do:
Show
1. Imbalanced gameplay. Any and all characters must be able to contribute equally both in combat and out of combat at all levels of play. If the Fighters are linear and the Wizards quadratic, I walk.
2. Hardcore simulationist approach. D&D is a game about heroic fantasy. I'm weak and useless enough in real life; I play RPGs for a change of pace. If the only reason a rule exists is because "that's how it's supposed to be", I walk. I don't want a game that "simulates" real life, I want a game that simulates heroic fantasy.
3. Worshipping at false idols (AKA Sacred Cows). If the only reason a rule exists is "it's always been that way", I walk. Now to be clear, I have no problem with some things not changing; my issue is with retaining bad idea simply for the sake of nostalgia.
4. DM vs. players. If the game encourages "gotcha!" moments or treats the DM and players as enemies, adversaries, or problems to be overcome, I walk.
5. Rules for the sake of rules. The only thing I want rules for is the things I can't do sitting around a table with my friends. If the rules try to step on my ability to roleplay the character I want to roleplay, I walk. Furthermore, the rules serve to facilitate gameplay, not to simulate the world.
NOTE: Items in red have been violated.
Chris Perkins' DM Survival Tips:
Show
1. When in doubt, wing it.
2. Keep the story moving. Go with the flow.
3. Sometimes things make the best characters.
4. Always give players lots of things to do.
5. Wherever possible, say ‘yes.’
6. Cheating is largely unnecessary.
7. Don't be afraid to give the characters a fun new toy.
8. Don't get in the way of a good players exchange.
9. Avoid talking too much.
10. Save some details for later.
11. Be transparent.
12. Don't show all your cards.
Words to live by.
Quotes From People Smarter Than Me:
Show
"Essentials zigged, when I wanted to continue zagging..." -Foxface on Essentials
"Servicing a diverse fan base with an RPG ruleset - far from being the mandate for 'open design space' and a cavalier attitude towards balance - requires creating a system that /works/, with minimal fuss, for a wide variety of play styles, not just from one group to the next, but at the same table." -Tony_Vargas on design
"Mearls' and Cook's stated intent to produce an edition that fans of all previous editions (and Pathfinder) will like more than their current favourite edition is laudable. But it is also, IMO, completely unrealistic. It's like people who pray for world peace: I might share their overall aims, but I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for them to succeed. When they talk in vague terms about what they'd like to do in this new edition, I mostly find myself thinking 'hey, that sounds cool, assuming they can pull it off', but almost every time they've said something specific about actual mechanics, I've found myself wincing and shaking my head in disbelief and/or disgust, either straight away or after thinking about the obvious implications for half a minute." -Duskweaver on D&D Next
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Dec 31, 2011 - 10:23AM
#46
|
Date Joined:
Jan 15, 2009
|
it's always the "entitled players" and never "entitled dm".
i find it cute.
annoying, but cute.
The fact that either of those concepts exists stongly imprinted enough on the gamer community's collective consciousness that we have a shorthand for it is telling, don't you think?
Nyeh.... despotic DM is really old and they are resisting any form of player empowerment with an ironhand.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Dec 31, 2011 - 10:27AM
#47
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2002
|
Nyeh.... despotic DM is really old and they are resisting any form of player empowerment with an ironhand.
Which is poisonous to the entire genre, much like griefers or other rude people in video games.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Dec 31, 2011 - 10:39AM
#48
|
|
|
as we talk about compromise and cooperation I am struck with the thought that "No, but ..." is just as valid a response from a DM as "Yes, but ..." when working with a player in need of compromise.
Additionally the players should be obligated to coopoerative and collaborative play as much as a DM should be (if at all).
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Dec 31, 2011 - 10:46AM
#49
|
Date Joined:
Dec 21, 2004
|
Love how extremist non-cooperative players are assumed the norm.. funny game edition didnt turn any of my players in to ****s
Then you're indeed a very lucky DM.  I was just reporting my personal experience with the issue and why I've changed my stance on the topic.
At first I was also in the boat of "putting a bit more control into the players' hands is a great idea", but at least for me personally it got completely out of hand.
I just draw the line when I get told by one player "oh, and I thought there was a reasonable excuse" as response why I don't allow tieflings as player characters [yet] (the reason was: because in the world tieflings are only born since a few years ago and then only in a nation where the church of Asmodeus is state religion and the government has a deal signing over basically each citicen's soul to Asmodeus in exchange for continued prosperity and protection against its surrounding enemies).
----
@The_Othe_GM: So... the DM doesn't get to have some fun with building a world and plot, but only gets to be the human jukebox that has to provide endless entertainment for the players and must subjugate every single one of his ideas to the players' approval?
I know that it is (or rather, should be) a give and take from both DMs and players, compromising on what to include in the campaign and what material is allowed. I also know that either side can be pretty stubborn and unrelenting. But the current default layout really doesn't make it easy for the DM to include restrictions/modifications in the game without running the risk of facing stern opposition.
My primary gripe with "everything is Core" is actually another one: the differences between the settings get watered down and diluted. Eberron has genasi, earthmotes and swordmages. FR has warforged, elemental powered airships and dragonmarks. Ravenloft has thri-kreen, gladiators and people turning into sorcerer kings. Dark Sun has pixies, living undead and arcane healers. But that's a topic for a different thread...
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Dec 31, 2011 - 10:56AM
#50
|
Date Joined:
Dec 14, 2011
|
I've removed content from this thread because Baiting is a violation of the Code of Conduct. You can review the Code of Conduct here: www.wizards.com/Company/About.aspx?x=wz_...Please keep your posts polite, respectful, and on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.
|
|
|
