|
4 months ago ::
Jan 28, 2013 - 4:14PM
#131
|
|
|
I understand what you're saying perfectly. It's degenerate design. You're assigning power to total level, rather than assigning power to the level of the class, which sounds great on paper. I can break your system in 10 minutes or less though.
Then by all means...break it.
Go ahead, I'll wait.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 28, 2013 - 4:33PM
#132
|
|
|
Some of us - perhaps even most of us - are perfectly happy with other people getting the style of game they want, so long as we also get what we want. That way, nobody is excluded. What you want is apparently that some folks - those who do not share your playstyle - to not get what they want. That's pretty much the definition of selfish.
I said nothign about playstyle. I'm talkign about actual rules.
It is my feeling that any edition of D&D should be able to support multiple playstyles.
It is also my opinion, that while 4E's core system is a sleek, intuitive, well designed set of rules at it's most basic level, the games failure to support multiple playstyles is what many of the game's more rational critics took such offense at.
I would support a game that had 4E's chassis, but managed to do away with many of the specifics, like AEDU powers, healing surges, long tactical combats, etc.
What do you want that is "new and innovative?" Are things like Advantage/Disadvantage, how Skills work now (disassociated with ability scores, unlike how they've been in the past?) and other things that I'm sure my tired brain isn't thinking of right now not new enough for you?
Again...those are just window dressing. I don't care about skill specifics or class features until the MOST important stuff is already nailed down.
When I talk about "newa nd innovative", I mean things like changes to the core structure of the game: advancement and scaling, action economy, challenge resolution, resource management, etc. These things need to be fixed before I'll even begin to give a rodent's anus about classes and feats.
Maybe eveyone here is just fine with yet another 3E clone posing as a new edition, but I need more out of the game and I bet I'm not alone.
Also, don't assume we're seeing everything. We're probably not. In fact, I'd bet money we aren't, because if we saw everything, there'd be no reason to pay for it, as we'd already have it.
I've seen enough to know that the entire house is built on a hill of turds.
And finally, good luck with the thought of them scrapping everything and starting over. I very much doubt that will happen. Wish for a unicorn while you're at it.
Yeah...I know they won't. Their mind was made up at the beginning. It's just sad to see that the design team has nothing inspired to offer this itertation and I am going to exaustively point out how much they are slacking from now until the day they commit the game to print. Then I will gloat incessantly for years once it fails.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 28, 2013 - 8:04PM
#133
|
Date Joined:
Nov 15, 2007
|
I just find it extremely ironic that the system called "D&D NEXT" takes so much effort to look like old systems. It's not D&D Next, it's D&D Again, or D&D Grognard Edition. It's not even about the mechanics, it's about the attitude - instead of mitigating the "edition war", Wizards decided to switch sides.
I started DMing in 2nd edition, I have some pretty fond memories of it, sure. But it was like 15 years ago! I have a lot of fond memories of drinking till I pass out during my teen years, or trying to get it on with my high school crush, but it doesn't mean I want to do it again!
I'd be a lot more excited if the new edition was actually something NEW - not an obvious attempt to pander to the 4e haters.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 28, 2013 - 10:42PM
#134
|
|
|
To say the OGL did it is like saying the cliff is at fault when you walk off it. OGL was there first. the designers of 4e had to design 4e knowing the OGL was giving competitors the ability to horn in. Since [by your theory] they didn't, it is their flaw, not that of the OGL.
Note too that 3E also had to deal with OGL, and did so. And 5E will also have to deal with the OGL. It is a distraction to try to blame 4e's failure on what is our basic situation.
3E had to deal with OGL and... it wasn't going well.
The initial response was very good and as Wizards intended - everyone wanted to use the system of the world's most famed RPG... It allowed D20 to dominate the market and become the most notorious game system ever.
However, as the years passed by, D&D became increasingly "old", and while there were a lot of bad products with D20 logo and companies who did not know how to handle D20, many systems began to appear that competed directly with Wizards IPs.
Systems like Green Ronin's Mutants & Masterminds
talented chessplayer: "How about a game?"
World Champ: "Sure. I'll give you knight odds."
TC: "But you have never heard of me. How can you be sure you can beat me despite such a heavy handicap?"
WC: "Because I have never heard of you."
Now I have heard of M&M, but the principle still applies. One hears so little of it that it can't be more than one of the 7 dwarfs, not a serious rival of 3e or 4e. And its sales did not affect WOTC's decisions about 4e or 5e.
began gaining notoriety and fame while 3.X was further and further seen as old and cluttered. Paizo's fame with adventure paths was also made at this time.
As the years passed, the 3.X system was seen as an old engine that other companies were improving - Green Ronin, Paizo...
That is what drove a need for a 4th edition. 3rd edition sales were declining as other companies were gaining notoriety with products with more inovative design. If Wizards had insisted in keeping 3rd edition, games like M&M and True 20 would capture the audience claming for a improved game.
The decline of 3e had little or nothing to do with its competition. Rather, WOTC had apparently decided right from the start that 3e had a 5 year life span [extended to 8 when 3.5 came out and reset the clock.] The rivals simply were too small to consider.
3.X survives because of Paizo and Pathfinder. 3.X managed to beat the OGL because it effectively traded companies. 3rd edition would not have survived the OGL had Wizards not built 4e. WotC were already losing their costumers to people who were creating better game systems with the OGL.
But Pathfinder is not a seriously better system than 3.5. In fact it was almost a complete copy. It was not one of these "better" systems,which have mostly continued to have small sales. Trading companies did not give 3.5 any boost. Rather the game had more support than any of us thought.
If Wizards' 4th edition was exactly the system you see in Pathfinder, you can bet many people would simply label it as another "0.25" on the 3.X line and accuse WotC of moneygrabbing :P. The "3.5" move was met with heavy criticism from the public, would this same public swallow a "3.75" from the same company?
Durn right we would have. Oh we would have screamed some as we pulled out our wallets, but we would have done so.
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 28, 2013 - 11:19PM
#135
|
Date Joined:
Oct 25, 2010
|
The problem with RPGs is that many people (but not you, Zard) equate good times with good design, and bad times with bad design; ignoring group dynamics, personal preferences, and other external influences. Worse, when people begin to realize that something they love is poorly designed, they resist fixing the bad parts of what they love, and instead dig in their heels, claim "my game, right or wrong!", and accept a lot of warts in an unnecessary way.
Yeah far too many people get blinded by this sort of nostalgia. It makes getting useful feedback from a playtest rather difficult, because anything that's different immediately gets labeled bad.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 28, 2013 - 11:28PM
#136
|
Date Joined:
Apr 15, 2001
|
I'm very lenieint on mechanics as I have always like options etc from 2nd ed through to 4th ed. I don't care if they give fighters powers/feats/manuveurs etc as I do not expect them to stay where they were in pre 3rd ed.
I do expect spellcasters to resemble what came before in some way. Some sort of spell caster tabke similar to 3rd and 2nd ed, not to worried if divine casters have level 7 or 9 spells.
A Paladin to me is LG, has a mount, can smite evil, detect evil and casts some divine spells and has things like lay on hands.
Maybe it is time to change the Paladin from LG though. Rangers in 3rd ed no longer had to be good for example. If they change a single class oh well it happens but 4th ed ditched 4/9 alignments and made changes right across the board and that was a big turn off.
Change is fine as long as it is incremental, logical and an evolution of the previous edition. Level limits and racial restrictions were relaxed in various 2nd ed products so having them go bye bye in 3.0 wasn't such a shock.
Reducing a character to a list of dice rolls and modifiers is not role playing*
*pg 30, AD&D 2nd Ed DMG, 1989.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 29, 2013 - 4:27AM
#137
|
Date Joined:
Dec 14, 2003
|
Now I have heard of M&M, but the principle still applies. One hears so little of it that it can't be more than one of the 7 dwarfs, not a serious rival of 3e or 4e. And its sales did not affect WOTC's decisions about 4e or 5e.
I disagree. Nowadays? Yes M&M is not serious competition. Back then, people were talking a lot about it. And about the products created by other companies. But they weren't talking about 3rd edition...
But Pathfinder is not a seriously better system than 3.5. In fact it was almost a complete copy. It was not one of these "better" systems,which have mostly continued to have small sales. Trading companies did not give 3.5 any boost. Rather the game had more support than any of us thought.
Again, respectfully disagree. Paizo's marketing revived 3.5 to an audience burned by 4th edition. In face of a new edition that many were unsure about, Paizo was offering them a new and better 3.5. I agree wholeheartdly with you - its almost a copy. Paizo's original vision for Path advanced the design further, but public playtest dragged it back to something as close to 3.5 as possible.
But 3rd edition sales were on decline. It lives because another company turned the old game into a "sequel" to itself. A people bought it. And those that have bought will not deny it to be a improvement over 3.5 - even if it is almost a clone.
Durn right we would have. Oh we would have screamed some as we pulled out our wallets, but we would have done so.
Maybe yes. Maybe no. I wouldn't be so sure that a "Wizards' 3.75" would be as well accept as you think  .
---
Of course, all my humble opinion. It's just a different perspective  .
Are you threatening me master jedi?  Dungeons & Dragons 4e Classic - The Dark Edition
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 29, 2013 - 8:29AM
#138
|
|
|
Interesting how 50% of respondents picked on the fence or negative opinions. Seems like the people reading this forum are more negative than those posting here.
...whatever
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 29, 2013 - 8:51AM
#139
|
Date Joined:
Jan 23, 2012
|
Some of us - perhaps even most of us - are perfectly happy with other people getting the style of game they want, so long as we also get what we want. That way, nobody is excluded. What you want is apparently that some folks - those who do not share your playstyle - to not get what they want. That's pretty much the definition of selfish.
I said nothign about playstyle. I'm talkign about actual rules.
It is my feeling that any edition of D&D should be able to support multiple playstyles.
It is also my opinion, that while 4E's core system is a sleek, intuitive, well designed set of rules at it's most basic level, the games failure to support multiple playstyles is what many of the game's more rational critics took such offense at.
I would support a game that had 4E's chassis, but managed to do away with many of the specifics, like AEDU powers, healing surges, long tactical combats, etc.
What do you want that is "new and innovative?" Are things like Advantage/Disadvantage, how Skills work now (disassociated with ability scores, unlike how they've been in the past?) and other things that I'm sure my tired brain isn't thinking of right now not new enough for you?
Again...those are just window dressing. I don't care about skill specifics or class features until the MOST important stuff is already nailed down.
When I talk about "newa nd innovative", I mean things like changes to the core structure of the game: advancement and scaling, action economy, challenge resolution, resource management, etc. These things need to be fixed before I'll even begin to give a rodent's anus about classes and feats.
Maybe eveyone here is just fine with yet another 3E clone posing as a new edition, but I need more out of the game and I bet I'm not alone.
Also, don't assume we're seeing everything. We're probably not. In fact, I'd bet money we aren't, because if we saw everything, there'd be no reason to pay for it, as we'd already have it.
I've seen enough to know that the entire house is built on a hill of turds.
And finally, good luck with the thought of them scrapping everything and starting over. I very much doubt that will happen. Wish for a unicorn while you're at it.
Yeah...I know they won't. Their mind was made up at the beginning. It's just sad to see that the design team has nothing inspired to offer this itertation and I am going to exaustively point out how much they are slacking from now until the day they commit the game to print. Then I will gloat incessantly for years once it fails.
So you're just here to be petty and selfish. Got it. Have fun with that.
I'm beginning to understand why some people are increasing their ignore lists quite a lot - a group I'm rapidly joining, it seems.
For those confused on how DDN's modular rules might work, this may provide some insight: http://www.tor.com/blogs/2012/11/the-world-of-darkness-shines-when-it-abandons-canon
@mikemearls: Uhhh... do you really not see all the 3e/4e that's basically the entire core system?
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 29, 2013 - 9:30AM
#140
|
- Forum Guide
- Hero Craftsman Gold Medalist
- Master Dungeon Master
Date Joined:
Jun 23, 2005
|
Interesting how 50% of respondents picked on the fence or negative opinions. Seems like the people reading this forum are more negative than those posting here.
I picked neutral because I think judging the edition based on the playtest documents is premature and absurd. I wouldn't be surprised to think I am not alone in that. I also note we have no idea how many people responded.
|
|
|
