General RPG DiscussionDiscussion of all RPGs and non-system-specific topics. DM/GM/player issues, settings, etc. Rules discussion belongs in one the forums below.
Gamers Online Now: 865
140 members and 725 guests
Most users ever online was 4,029, 8th April 2009 at 05:04 PM.
This product is 56 pages long and free. Cover, credits, intro and ToC take up 4 pages. I counted 17 pages of adds many of them for other Rite... [Read More]
Evocative City Sites Lorn's Entrepot (Abandoned Warehouse) by Rite Publishing. I was given this product for the purposes of this review. This product is 47 pages long. Cover, Credits, two pages of... [Read More]
Feats 101 by Rite Publishing. I was given this product for the purposes of this review. I have not yet played using these feats my review is based on reading the feats and checking a few against... [Read More]
The Plane Below: Secrets of the Elemental Chaos is a 4e D&D product describing some of the different planes in the 4e Cosmology. The book is a typical hard bound book that Wizards of the Coast... [Read More]
True, but if someone approaches a marketing statement with neutrality and comes away insulted, the marketing has failed for that person.
and
Quote:
an_idol_mind
From my perspective, I was open to the idea of 4th edition and interested in it. The marketing largely annoyed me because so much of it seemed to be focused on, "3rd edition is a bad system," which I disagreed with. From that angle, it made me wonder whether 4th edition would be my thing, since it seemed built by people who had very different perspectives on what a good RPG was than I did.
That would have been me.
I was looking forward to 4Ed (not that I had problems with 3.5, mind you- I just thought it would be a further refinement, not an overhaul). I preordered it the first day I could, just like I did when 3Ed and 3.5 were announced.
However, the more press releases I saw, the more ticked off I got. In order to be able to judge the game on its own merits, I consciously stopped reading the 4Ed previews, leaks and threads after the first month. (Which is part of the reason why I have no idea where to look for that stuff now.)
By the time 4Ed was actually released, I had almost forgotten all the stuff that had come out, so I was able to approach 4Ed with a relatively open mind.
Which led to...
Quote:
Azgulor
Even though 4e isn't my cup of tea, I can objectively state that it's a well-developed fantasy RPG.
Funny you would mention Terry Brooks in there considering his best selling novel is simply a pastiche of LotR. He may not have taken the title of Lord of the Rings, but, he certainly nicked the plot, characters and setting.
Bad Hussar! Naughty Hussar!
While there are similarities, and Shanarra does have a resemblance to LotR, let us not forget that JRRT's most famous work was a skillful reworking of a variety of tropes from the folklore, legends and mythology of Europe (with which he'd be intimately familiar). I'm not saying it was a copy, by any stretch of the imagination, just that like others who followed in his wake, he, too, was inspired by storytellers past.
<SNIP>
"D&D is a game about slaying horrible monsters, not a game about traipsing off through fairy rings and interacting with the little people."
James Wyatt, Races and Classes
<SNIP>
Thank you for that, I have been trying to remember where the heck I had read that, and I have been misattributing it to Mr. Mearls for a while now.
That one line is where I started disliking 4e, as opposed to not liking what they were doing with the licenses and the marketing. It took 23 words to make me decide that the game was not for me, even before details of the GSL locked that decision in stone.
The Auld Grump, I like games where the PCs traipse through faerie rings and interact with the little folk. Heck, I do that with Spycraft, which is hardly less combat centered than 4e.
__________________ Oh, I am a cook, and a captain bold, and the mate of the Nancy brig,
The midship mite,
And the Bo'sun tight,
And the crew of the captain's gig...
Therein lies the crux. I don't believe that people came to the table from a position of neutrality. I think people came to the table openly hostile (particularly after the debacle of the Dragon/Dungeon thing) and made finding offense their primary goal.
Not everyone mind you. But a significant and more importantly, very loud number.
The problem people ont his thread are having, is that you're accusing them of this.
I'm not doubting that people came in with hostility pre-present, but people on this thread have stated "I walked in neutral and got offended," and you and Fifth Element have both responded with "No, you're lying. You walked in openly hostile. Go ahead and prove me wrong."
That gets under peoples' skins.
A lot.
__________________ This is the song written for the train chase.
This is the chase, Rocky and Ken!
He tried to kill me with a forklift…
Olé!
For what it is worth, pointing out that the WotC folks who managed to be offensive were not marketing but rather the game designers does make a certain amount of sense. It does not make me feel less offended, but it does become more understandable. The new game was their baby, not some stray that they adopted.
And the preview books were just plain a bad idea in my estimation - charging just as much for an advertisement as had been charged for the each of the actual books for 3.0.
My own opinion started as neutral, and kept sliding downwards as the months went by. By comparison, my opinion of 3e started as neutral, and rose as the previews came out.
And the OGL was a thing of beauty to me. Had the GSL come out before the OGL I would not be offended, and would likely laud it as a good idea. Instead it replaced the OGL, which I still think was a wonderful idea.
The Auld Grump
__________________ Oh, I am a cook, and a captain bold, and the mate of the Nancy brig,
The midship mite,
And the Bo'sun tight,
And the crew of the captain's gig...
For what it is worth, pointing out that the WotC folks who managed to be offensive were not marketing but rather the game designers does make a certain amount of sense. It does not make me feel less offended, but it does become more understandable. The new game was their baby, not some stray that they adopted.
And the preview books were just plain a bad idea in my estimation - charging just as much for an advertisement as had been charged for the each of the actual books for 3.0.
My own opinion started as neutral, and kept sliding downwards as the months went by. By comparison, my opinion of 3e started as neutral, and rose as the previews came out.
And the OGL was a thing of beauty to me. Had the GSL come out before the OGL I would not be offended, and would likely laud it as a good idea. Instead it replaced the OGL, which I still think was a wonderful idea.
The Auld Grump
Yeah, there are issues, and the GSL is a big one for me, something I am sure is shocking.
4e isn't for me, I'm running OSRIC at the moment. But I don't understand people who are still blaming the marketing for their dislike of the game.
If folks are still refusing to play 4e 2 years in because of its marketing plan, I would find that... odd.
I could take from this thread that people prefer to be lied to professionally by marketing then hearing designers honest thoughts.
If a designer tells you an old rule didn't work well and was "un-fun" and he has created a new rule that works better and is more fun, is that really an insult to you? Or is it not more a promise: "I think I found a flaw and found a way to fix it."
But maybe it's just that marketing can't succeed for everyone.
Pathfinders goal - according to marketing and designer speech - was not an overhaul of the system. It was not there to fix all the various problems I found with the game (despite liking it a lot at the same time.) It is "just" there to keep 3E in print. Maybe a little to create a fresh breeze making it interesting again. But nothing that addresses my issues with the system.
If I wanted to be offended, I could say they are just trying to sell me the same old and don't really bother with innovation, believing I was stupid enough to fall for that trick.
Of course, that's selling them short and putting a negative spin on what they did.
In fact, I think they are doing pretty good work for what the set out to do and there is a significant market that wants what they do. I am not part of that market. Their marketing is not aimed at me. That's fine with me.
I think 4E marketing succeeded pretty well, overall. It attracted the audience it targetted. It got me interested and excited. It motiviated fans to create their own adventures based on preview materials and Gameday material. Some people felt offended, but I didn't gain the impression so far they liked the rules, either. If that's true, it's only failure is that it didn't dupe people that wouldn't care for the system to buy it. (But I think it even got that covered.)
Thoughts of the Arch Chancellor - My weblog on EN World - containing game related material, like: house rules, design theories, reviews, play reports, adventure ideas
Secret Member of <Think we would just hide our secret with a spoiler tag, eh?>
...I think 4E marketing succeeded pretty well, overall. It attracted the audience it targetted. It got me interested and excited. It motiviated fans to create their own adventures based on preview materials and Gameday material. Some people felt offended, but I didn't gain the impression so far they liked the rules, either. If that's true, it's only failure is that it didn't dupe people that wouldn't care for the system to buy it. (But I think it even got that covered.)
4E marketing certainly worked for me. The chaps in my group pretty much raced each other to get the core books first and we were playing KotS with the preview rules (and a bit of the Red Hand of Doom fan conversion) before release.
It turned out that 4E wasn't for us in the end but I don't recall feeling that WotC had misrepresented the system.
I do however remember reading the core books and thinking 'this doesn't look like my cup of tea' but remembering the non-WotC generated buzz (on AICN and elsewhere) of 'it reads bad but plays great' that had been pushing me through moments of doubt when playing the preview rules. This kept me (and our group) persisting with the system (despite not 'feeling' it) for a lot longer than we otherwise would have.
As for 'insulting' designer talk. I didn't pick up on this myself. I think there's a big difference between highlighting shortcomings in rule mechanics as opposed to rule intent. I'm not bothered when someone tells me that they have put together a slicker way of doing X. It might bother me (I think 'insulted' would be putting it way too strongly for me!) if was told that the old rule didn't support playstyle Y, playstyle Y is better, the new rule supports playstyle Y, the new rule is better.
Again, at the end of the day though, who's fault is it? You're NEVER going to win when the girlfriend asks you "does this make me look fat?" In the same way, I think WOTC could have groveled at the feet of every earlier edtion, debasing themselves frequently, and people would still have been saying, "You are hating on my playstyle".
Don't be silly. "You look great" means that it's not the dress that makes her look attractive; she is already. Sometimes a leer and elevator eyes works. Sometimes criticizing the dress works. Of course there are ways to win at that game; they just vary by circumstance, environment and acting ability. Just like in marketing. And, of course, who's fault it is is entirely irrelevant, since you bear the consequences.
Just because it's hard and there's no magic bullet doesn't make the task hopeless.
__________________ All role playing advice is given without knowledge of you and your group. Only you and your group knows what is fun for you. What you are doing is not badwrongfun. My advice is offered based on what I think might be fun for you to try.
"Art is the demonstration that the ordinary is extraordinary." - Amedee Ozenfant, Foundations of Modern Art
"I already have a place where I can get little recognition for my accomplishments, advance at a very slow pace, and have to work hard to eke out minimum rewards for my efforts. It's called work." - toberane.
While there are similarities, and Shanarra does have a resemblance to LotR, let us not forget that JRRT's most famous work was a skillful reworking of a variety of tropes from the folklore, legends and mythology of Europe (with which he'd be intimately familiar). I'm not saying it was a copy, by any stretch of the imagination, just that like others who followed in his wake, he, too, was inspired by storytellers past.
Indeed, I was recently reading William Morris' The House of the Wolflings, published prior to LOTR and The Hobbit, and was startled to find not only the Mirkwood, but another form of the Theoden story. Tolkein, of course, had read and enjoyed Morris (as had Lewis). He also borrows quite a bit from Shakespeare and other sources.
RC
__________________ [A]ny good dungeon will have undiscovered treasures in areas that have been explored by the players, simply because it is impossible to expect that they will find every one of them.
- Module B1, Page 24
RCFG - My free mostly-OGC OGL game! RCFG is intended to be a fusion between OS & NS playstyles, giving the advantages of SRD-based gaming coupled with quick character and adventure generation and an Old School feel. BETA PLAYTEST NOW AVAILABLE! First Review!
Paizo created new grapple rules because the old rules were too hard. How is this not considered insulting to people who actually didn't have problems with the grapple rules before?
Pretty much every designer that comes up with a modification of the base rule is saying "The original rule sucked...here's a better method".
Probably because they never said that the old grapple rules were horrible or unfun, and that if you used them regularly in your games, your games weren't much fun. In other words, they did exactly the opposite of WotC. They didn't go on and on about how much grappling was a soul killing unfun experience, and that their fix was so cool and awesome, but they couldn't tell you why. You just have to trust them. They said that they were merging the special combat options, with all of their differing subsystems, into a more streamlined and unified mechanic. That is exactly what they did. I wonder if the real problem is that there was little to no official marketing of 4E. It was mostly designer blogs, messageboard posts, etc. Of course, the few official pieces of marketing I am aware of (the horrible youtube video and the preview books) did have some of the more inflammatory statments. I guess the 4E marketing was just too amateurish to do anything but come accross as either insulting or pathetic.
While there are similarities, and Shanarra does have a resemblance to LotR, let us not forget that JRRT's most famous work was a skillful reworking of a variety of tropes from the folklore, legends and mythology of Europe (with which he'd be intimately familiar). I'm not saying it was a copy, by any stretch of the imagination, just that like others who followed in his wake, he, too, was inspired by storytellers past.
As they say in academia, stealing from one source is plagiarism. Two or more and it's research.
__________________ The female tiefling's horns are not 'handlebars'.
On that line though, what is the effect of people just going into Borders or B&N and just page-flipping? That catches a lot of casual interest. That's the sole reason I picked up a lot of game-related books over the last few years. The 4e original core books are especially attractive to the casual reader, IMO, despite any perceived flaws of homogeneity, etc. All the books are really professional looking and really are designed for quick and easy reference ... which lends itself to be visually appealing.
Really? Huh. I pick up a 4E book and flip through it and see page after page of statblocks.
Don't get me wrong, I'm a 4E player and think 4E has a lot of good stuff (though I have been growing increasingly dissatisfied with some elements), but as far as I'm concerned, 4E books give very bad flip-through.
Indeed, I was recently reading William Morris' The House of the Wolflings, published prior to LOTR and The Hobbit, and was startled to find not only the Mirkwood, but another form of the Theoden story. Tolkein, of course, had read and enjoyed Morris (as had Lewis). He also borrows quite a bit from Shakespeare and other sources.
Morris' Goths inhabit an area called the Mark on a river in the forest of Mirkwood, divided according into the Upper-mark, the Mid-mark and the Nether-mark. They worship their gods Odin and Tyr by sacrificing horses and rely on seers who foretell the future and serve as psychic news-gatherers.
The men of the Mark choose two War Dukes to lead them against their enemies, one each from the House of the Wolfings and the House of the Laxings. The Wolfing war leader is Thiodolf, a man of mysterious and perhaps divine antecedents whose ability to lead is threatened by his possession of a magnificent dwarf-made mail-shirt which, unknown to him, is cursed. He is supported by his lover the Wood Sun and their daughter the Hall Sun, who are related to the gods.
Gamers Online Now: 865
(But I think it even got that covered.)
Linear Mode
