|
1 year ago ::
Jan 09, 2012 - 8:30AM
#51
|
Date Joined:
Oct 28, 2010
|
Indeed. Some criticisms, I can get on board with. But this announcement having been known about in advance by journalists is not one of them. It is entirely necessary for this sort of concerted marketing push, and entirely understandable. I expected no less.
The attempt to be all things to all men, on the other hand, is giving me deep concerns. It seems to be a big theme of the articles, and it just sounds like pie in the sky at the moment. Having seen the insane rampantness of edition wars, I just don't think it's possible to reconcile the differences between all (4, 5, 6, 7, however many) earlier editions (and sub-editions, and not-editions etc etc) and this one.
I have, as ever, high hopes and low expectations.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 09, 2012 - 8:31AM
#52
|
Date Joined:
Jun 23, 2011
|
So, several developers might be reading this thread, and some of them may be sleepy. Beginning the process of implementation of post-hypnotic suggestion:
Do not repeat the mistake of GSL. If you want your players to shape this game, let them do it forever. Give them again the freedom the OGL has given them to add and change the rules as much as they need. Give them tools to do that, and don't make them feel punished for homebrewing (like current Character Builder apparently has no place for homebrews). Make it feel rewarding to be implementing new stuff for this game, forever.
Hey, it's not bad as far as post-hypnotic suggestions go.
Check out my D&D-based play-by-post game, based on exploration and roleplaying. Agora
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 09, 2012 - 8:31AM
#53
|
Date Joined:
Sep 19, 2007
|
awesome! so everyone but the actual players knew about it
Really everyone's been pointing to it since the content wind-down.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 09, 2012 - 8:35AM
#54
|
|
|
i would like someone from wizards to tell us as soon as possible what will happen to 4th. specifically will the tools still be up, will it be supported in the mags or on the website at all after 5th comes out
We plan to continue offering people access to tools such as the D&D Character Builder and D&D Monster Builder to support 4th Edition.
This is good. Really good. Continued support, even with electronic things, means customers who don't feel abandoned. 
You do realize that what will actually happen is that support will stop. And the official line will be, we had planned to continue to support, but our data shows it's not cost effective to continue to do so. There will be no more updates to any of those tools.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 09, 2012 - 8:39AM
#55
|
|
|
My concern is that with the L&L articles have not really had much player feedback as would really be required to really get the voice of the customer.
The order of events has been:
1. Post L&L article w/ Poll.
2. Posters respond to poll and discuss on forum.
3. Collect data on poll (and hopefully from discussion)
4. Post next L&L article with no real discussion on the previous one.
What I need to see to know that our voices are really being heard is when new articles come out - call out a poster that comes across like "Scottevil912 writes - 'we need to have our voices heard' and follow that with some additional discussion by the writer.
Part of the problem here is that Mike and Monte couldn't talk explicitly about all the things going on behind the curtain - so I th ink that's alleviated at this point. Also, we're planning at this point to have more two-way communication going forward. I don't have all the details yet - maybe L&L is the place for that increased communication, or maybe it's elsewhere, but it is something we'll be doing. All I can do is promise that we'll do our best to show you that your feedback matters once the ball gets rolling.
Thank you.
I'm really not trying to be negative, I really am trying to be supportive because I do love D&D and I love 4e despite it's flaws and I want to make sure that if a new edition is going to be released that I do everything I can to make it the D&D that I, and others, would enjoy playing.
It's just a bit discouraging when a L&L article is posted and then you see the people on the forum just tear into each other (and the author of the article) for an entire week, just for the next L&L article to be released and no real acknowledgement of what was said by anyone the week before other than some poll results.
Going to keep my fingers crossed that this is going to be a successful playtest, and I will keep providing my feedback both on the changes to 5e, as well as feedback on the playtest process (using my experience as a project SME and process modeler/analyst on various IT & Business projects)
Well, yeah, the issue with the way the L&L process went seemed to me more like there was an article discussing some aspect of the game. Then there was a thread, in which all sorts of commentary was generated, pros, cons, different variations on the basic concept, etc. Now, sometimes you got the impression that Mike (not so sure about Monte, but we'll assume true there too) had noted that and there'd be some hint of that feeding into his thought process. The thing is, the last part of it was kind of missing. Nobody really gets to hear what Mike thinks of OUR ideas. I think the community can contribute a lot more when there's a tighter and more detailed back and forth loop going on there. If someone says "well, this skill system idea is OK, but X,Y, Z" then the discussion doesn't progress unless there's some commentary coming back on X, Y, and Z. The discussions just sort of launch off into the vacuum of outer space and wander somewhat aimlessly, or else get stuck in a tight loop that sucks itself into a black hole endlessly debating some one minor point.
At least going forward the value of these discussions would be much higher with a tighter feedback. I know it sucks up time and energy and often the developers aren't any more sure of which way they want to go than anyone else, but even just saying "yeah, looks like you've all identified 3 approaches, we'll think about these in a couple months when we get back to that aspect of the design, but here are a couple follow-on things to think about"
Anyway, good luck on the whole project. Lets all just remember to have fun here, eh? The die is cast. If people want to talk about their grumbles and hurt feelings and whatever lets just not. There WILL be a 5e, so there's no point in even talking about if there should be or not or if we're burned out on edition rolls or whatever else. Just doesn't matter at this point.
That is not dead which may eternal lie
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 09, 2012 - 8:40AM
#56
|
Date Joined:
Jun 30, 2008
|
I do have to say that I am a bit irritated that the hundreds of dollars I have fairly recently spent on books, maps, modules, etc. are soon to be rendered obsolete, particularly since this is not the first time I have suffered through this (Original PHB, DMG, MM, DD, then 2nd edition, then 3rd , then 3.5, now 4th).
Yeah, I spent a good bit money on 4E books (I think I own at least 15 books) and a ddi subscription assuming it would be around for longer than 4 or 5 years. I doubt I will be spending much if any on 5E, especially if it doesn't go mostly digital. At this point I am not even sure I will be updating my ddi subscription that is about to run out.
I feel a bit like a rube at this point for thinking that there would be no way they would announce a 5E this early. I don't like feeling like a rube.
my handbooks & builds
Show
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 09, 2012 - 8:41AM
#57
|
|
|
I'm cautiously optimistic. It will be difficult to reconcile fundamental differences in preference ("I like balanced classes!" vs "Casters should be much more powerful than warriors at high levels!"), especially if players within the same group have different preferences. My former D&D group is now 2 different groups; a few of us (plus one new person) branched off to play 4e pretty much exclusively, while the rest of the group tried it but then moved onto Pathfinder.
That said, I think such a long, open playtest will be a great way to iron out as many wrinkles as possible. I appreciate the constant errata that 4e has recieved, but it's certainly annoying to know that a good chunk of the content from my physical books is obsolete. Getting almost everything RIGHT before the books are published will be ideal.
This is going to be a huge undertaking, and I suspect the most difficult part will be sorting out the important points in all of the bickering that will inevitably ensue. I don't envy whoever has that job!
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 09, 2012 - 8:46AM
#58
|
|
|
1. The OGL was a travesty. I hope they don't bring it back, and I don't think they will.
2. The biggest problem I see with modularity is that it isn't just about rules, it's about aesthetics. Different editions of D&D had different aesthetics, and of you look at 1E and 2E the aesthetics set them apart more than anything. As little faith as I have in a modular system being able to appeal to conflicting tastes, it's the aesthetic aspect I expect them to royally fail at.
...whatever
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 09, 2012 - 8:49AM
#59
|
Date Joined:
May 18, 2002
|
Just decouple mechanics from fluff. Flavor can always be painted on later.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 09, 2012 - 8:50AM
#60
|
|
|
And now we do. Seriously, man, I defend you often enough to tell you to quit being so negative.
You're seriously whining that they did a simultaneous announcement across a wide variety of platforms including the new york times?
It's a pretty damn wide announcement, man.
im a little po'd that they are killing 4th edition. ill work on the attitude but what can i say i am not really happy with the way they are killing 4th
|
|
|
