|
7 months ago ::
Nov 13, 2012 - 9:27AM
#61
|
Date Joined:
Jan 15, 2009
|
When a schmuck gets up after being knocked down, they become a hero.
Schmucks dont get back up... cant the game mechanics decide that stuff.
The players characters are protagonists of the games story and not schmucks.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 13, 2012 - 9:30AM
#62
|
Date Joined:
Jan 15, 2009
|
When a schmuck gets up after being knocked down, they become a hero.
Or a villain.
They get knocked down... but they get up again?
All the time its a trope you dont have recurring enemies or arange bodies to dissappear with recall rituals and the like?
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 13, 2012 - 9:32AM
#63
|
Date Joined:
Dec 11, 2006
|
I did not turn away, but I found myself more focused elsewhere.
In no particular order:
1. overly focused tactical combat (battle-mat)
2. trying to push CCG into the mix
3. overly board game feel
4. never ending combat
5. way too much errata
6. eventual failure to deliver products on time, if ever, or with timely updates
Browncoats Unite...
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 13, 2012 - 9:38AM
#64
|
Date Joined:
Jun 27, 2004
|
4e brought me back to D&D, after 3.5 "made me turn away" from D&D.
Essentials probably marks the point where I was just no longer interested in 4e's releases, though.
Dark Sun? Awesome product. Essentially (it's a pun!) everything after it? Not my cup of tea.
Feedback Disclaimer
Show
Yes, I am expressing my opinions (even complaints - le gasp!) about the current iteration of the play-test that we actually have in front of us.
No, I'm not going to wait for you to tell me when it's okay to start expressing my concerns (unless you are WotC).
(And no, my comments on this forum are not of the same tone or quality as my actual survey feedback.)
A Psion for Next (Playable Draft)A Barbarian for Next (Brainstorming Still)My 4e Projects
Show
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 13, 2012 - 9:42AM
#65
|
Date Joined:
Jul 28, 2011
|
Hey,
I'm going to lock this thread. The title does seem to invite editiong wars, as well as the latest posts getting quite a bit off topic for this forum as well.
Thanks,
Monica
Monica
Wizards of the Coast Online Community Coordinator
A friendly dragon.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 13, 2012 - 9:43AM
#66
|
|
|
1) Brian Goldner remains CEO of Hasbro.
I never said he wasn't.
2) Recently Hasbro licensed and created a film based on their very large and profitable property, Battleship. Such a move remains extremely consistent with their "large property support" strategy outlined in the article. As quoted "Under Goldner, the Core Brands would be the tentpoles of the company. They would be exploited across a range of media with an eye towards major motion pictures, following the path Transformers had blazed."
So to state that the policy is no longer in effect seems questionable, since the release of a Battleship movie (seriously, Battleship) argues that it most certainly is. Do you have a source?
While Hasbro is certainly continuing their "core brands are the tentpole of the company" approach and focusing on expanding said Core brands two things have changes.
1) Battleship. This cost them a lot of money and netted some pretty bad publicity.
They delayed the second GIJoe movie as a result to do some reshoots. I think they've accepted that just sticking a famous name onto a movie does not equate with success.
2) They may no longer be mothballing or downplaying non-Core brands.
This is the big thing for D&D and many, many other brands. Not every game or toy is going to be the next Transformers and it's a mistake to think so. That doesn't mean they cannot be profitable, either as a short term limited duration brand or as a long term lesser profits but still profitable brand.
Before posting, ask yourself WWWS: What Would Wrecan Say? Spoiler:
Show
My Webcomic
Updated Tuesday and Thursday
Read my blog on the WotC Community Site (updated irregularly to avoid spamming the "Featured Blogger" list).
You can follow me on Twitter: "@DnDJester"
|
|
|
