|
6 months ago ::
Dec 07, 2012 - 12:15AM
#21
|
Date Joined:
Aug 22, 2007
|
Another thing to consider is that advertising a tactical module would turn off a lot of people interested in DDNext. Even if it were just optional, they would be offended that it were even possible. So, if a tactical module could be made, it would have to come after their view of DDNext was solidified, perhaps after its release.
If people are going to ragequit over Wizards actually following their desgin goals, the brand's better off without them.
Pretty much this. The people that are saying the game shouldn't be capable of evoking 4E (or any other edition, really) right out of the box, and if (optional) elements from said edition (Warlords, Tieflings and Dragonborn, etc) appear in the game, that they would quit are a demographic not worth pursuing. Because the list of unforgivables is going to be different for each person, and if they don't want to play that bad, they will manufacture reasons not to. These people are forgettable.
CORE MORE, NOT CORE BORE!
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 07, 2012 - 12:20AM
#22
|
|
|
I was under the impression that parts of The Sundering would be written as adventures for 4th Edition.
I don't consider "tactical D&D" and 4th Edition to be one and the same, honestly. While 4E is one of my least favorite Editions, I desire tactical D&D. I just consider tactics to be more than gridded combat, forced movement, status effects, group Feats, and knocking prone. I consider tactics to be a discussion between players about how to best approach a situation and how each character might help bring that outcome about. I consider tactics to include characters helping other characters achieve those goals in the ever changing chaos of an Encounter. To me, tactics are more of a factor of roleplaying than of ruleset.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 07, 2012 - 12:21AM
#23
|
|
|
Another thing to consider is that advertising a tactical module would turn off a lot of people interested in DDNext. Even if it were just optional, they would be offended that it were even possible. So, if a tactical module could be made, it would have to come after their view of DDNext was solidified, perhaps after its release.
If people are going to ragequit over Wizards actually following their desgin goals, the brand's better off without them.
Pretty much this. The people that are saying the game shouldn't be capable of evoking 4E (or any other edition, really) right out of the box, and if (optional) elements from said edition (Warlords, Tieflings and Dragonborn, etc) appear in the game, that they would quit are a demographic not worth pursuing. Because the list of unforgivables is going to be different for each person, and if they don't want to play that bad, they will manufacture reasons not to. These people are forgettable.
Even though I usually disagree with all the "lack of 4e" rage, leaving out something that big would be a pretty dumb mistake on their part. I can guarantee you of all the people who don't care about/want the tactical module, the amount of them that are rational enough to go "It's optional therefore I don't have to use it." vastly outwiegh the "It shouldn't exist" crowd :P
It should 100% exist as an option, and a pretty core option as well. Anything less is 100% unacceptable. The only exception I see is that they decide to release it as its own book just so that it gets the space it deserves. If they really want to add a slew of new content and rules, it might be better off its own 200+ page book than stuck somewhere in the PHB. It just might get more breathing room and attention that way.
My two copper.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 07, 2012 - 12:28AM
#24
|
Date Joined:
Oct 17, 2007
|
Chakravant: Actually, Storm at Baldur's Gate will be neutral/proto-5ed. If people are going to ragequit over Wizards actually following their desgin goals, the brand's better off without them.
You're forgetting that, when certain people hear the phrase "evoke styles of all versions of D&D", they mentally excise the edition they don't like from that grouping. You see, if they don't like it, it was never really D&D. Which would be a problem, except these people also like to buy a lot of RPG products, and they're willing to throw more of their personal time into championing/denouncing games as loud and as often as they can.
When it comes to money, it doesn't matter how unreasonable your customers are. If they are your best bet for profit, you aim your product at them.
"People want balance but can't accept this homogenization that occurs as a result of that balance being implemented. then they complain that the fighter is weaker than the wizard ad nauseam.: - Teitan
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 07, 2012 - 12:38AM
#25
|
Date Joined:
Aug 22, 2007
|
Another thing to consider is that advertising a tactical module would turn off a lot of people interested in DDNext. Even if it were just optional, they would be offended that it were even possible. So, if a tactical module could be made, it would have to come after their view of DDNext was solidified, perhaps after its release.
If people are going to ragequit over Wizards actually following their desgin goals, the brand's better off without them.
Pretty much this. The people that are saying the game shouldn't be capable of evoking 4E (or any other edition, really) right out of the box, and if (optional) elements from said edition (Warlords, Tieflings and Dragonborn, etc) appear in the game, that they would quit are a demographic not worth pursuing. Because the list of unforgivables is going to be different for each person, and if they don't want to play that bad, they will manufacture reasons not to. These people are forgettable.
Even though I usually disagree with all the "lack of 4e" rage, leaving out something that big would be a pretty dumb mistake on their part. I can guarantee you of all the people who don't care about/want the tactical module, the amount of them that are rational enough to go "It's optional therefore I don't have to use it." vastly outwiegh the "It shouldn't exist" crowd :P
It should 100% exist as an option, and a pretty core option as well. Anything less is 100% unacceptable. The only exception I see is that they decide to release it as its own book just so that it gets the space it deserves. If they really want to add a slew of new content and rules, it might be better off its own 200+ page book than stuck somewhere in the PHB. It just might get more breathing room and attention that way.
Hence why the "it shouldn't exist" crowd are forgettable. The one thing that needs to be kept in mind is that we don't even know if the PHB-DMG-MM model is what DDN will follow. One tweet from Mike Mearls regarding the Dragonborn is that they will exist at launch, but he didn't outright say one way or another that they will be in the PHB, MM, or some other book. The possibility of more than just the Core Three books is certainly there for launch. One issue I have with that though is I don't really think the system will be all that viable if people have to buy a whole slew of other books to achieve gameplay similar to what they had in other editions. Having to buy the PHB, Complete Races, and Complete Classes just to play my Dragonborn Warlord with the Magic-User theme doesn't seem very good, when I can play my Dragonborn Warlord with Wizard multiclass right out of the box in 4E. This is one of the things 4E got horrifically wrong, I couldn't play a Half-Orc Barbarian, a 3E staple, right out of the box, I had to wait an entire calendar year to do so.
I really think that layout will play a huge part here. They are going to have to use a fairly small font (not miniscule) to make all of the stuff fit into a 320 page book (the 2E, 3E, 3.5E, and 4E PHBs were all 320 pages, it is tradition).
CORE MORE, NOT CORE BORE!
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 07, 2012 - 12:45AM
#26
|
Date Joined:
Jun 21, 2012
|
I wonder how much D&D has cooked its own goose in this regard, 'cause 2nd edition was the only version that could truely be called an edition and not a totally different system derived from its predecessors. Editions in textbooks and the like are supposed to revise and clarify. They're not actually supposed to be total rewrites.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 07, 2012 - 3:38AM
#27
|
Date Joined:
May 19, 2011
|
You're forgetting that, when certain people hear the phrase "evoke styles of all versions of D&D", they mentally excise the edition they don't like from that grouping. You see, if they don't like it, it was never really D&D.
That's their own problem. Love or hate it, every edition of D&D has been D&D.
Which would be a problem, except these people also like to buy a lot of RPG products, and they're willing to throw more of their personal time into championing/denouncing games as loud and as often as they can.
What, and 4e fans and people who embrace all editions of D&D somehow can't buy a lot of RPG products and aren't willing to throw their personal time into their games?
When it comes to money, it doesn't matter how unreasonable your customers are. If they are your best bet for profit, you aim your product at them.
When it comes to money, logic dictates appealing to all their fanbase makes more money than appealing to half the fanbase and telling the other half to go **** off.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 07, 2012 - 5:33AM
#28
|
|
|
Chakravant: Actually, Storm at Baldur's Gate will be neutral/proto-5ed.
If people are going to ragequit over Wizards actually following their desgin goals, the brand's better off without them.
You're forgetting that, when certain people hear the phrase "evoke styles of all versions of D&D", they mentally excise the edition they don't like from that grouping. You see, if they don't like it, it was never really D&D. Which would be a problem, except these people also like to buy a lot of RPG products, and they're willing to throw more of their personal time into championing/denouncing games as loud and as often as they can.
When it comes to money, it doesn't matter how unreasonable your customers are. If they are your best bet for profit, you aim your product at them.
They claim to be attempting to unify the fanbase. You can't do that by catering to edition warrior hate. Either you or WotC is full of crap.
...whatever
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 07, 2012 - 6:19AM
#29
|
Date Joined:
Jun 21, 2012
|
They claim to be attempting to unify the fanbase. You can't do that by catering to edition warrior hate. Either you or WotC is full of crap.
Unifying the fanbase doesn't necessarily mean everyone playing 5e though. It kinda depends on your perspective. Personally, I think them claimin that is the same as them claiming that 4e would be the most "open" D&D yet: it's spin.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 07, 2012 - 1:23PM
#30
|
Date Joined:
May 19, 2011
|
Unifying the fanbase doesn't necessarily mean everyone playing 5e though. It kinda depends on your perspective. Personally, I think them claimin that is the same as them claiming that 4e would be the most "open" D&D yet: it's spin.
Except if they want to egt the biggets fanbase possible, they are going to have to cater to as many people as they can, and the 4e fambase, regardless of whether it's the majority or not, is still big enough where telling them their ideas have no place in 5e will likely result in it's demise.
|
|
|
