View Profile: jedavis - Morrus' Unofficial Tabletop RPG News
Tab Content
No Recent Activity
About jedavis

Basic Information

About jedavis
Introduction:
ACKS and Traveller DM. Also interested in GZG wargames
Sex:
Male
Age Group:
19-24
My Game Details

Details of games currently playing and games being sought.

Town:
Columbia
State:
Maryland
Country:
USA
More information:
http://wanderinggamist.blogspot.com/

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
271
Posts Per Day
0.06
Last Post
D&DN going down the wrong path for everyone. Tuesday, 12th March, 2013 05:55 PM

Currency

Gold Pieces
0
General Information
Last Activity
Monday, 1st July, 2013 12:33 AM
Join Date
Sunday, 28th August, 2005
Home Page
http://wanderinggamist.blogspot.com/
Product Reviews & Ratings
Reviews Written
0
My Game Details
Town:
Columbia
State:
Maryland
Country:
USA
More information:
http://wanderinggamist.blogspot.com/
No results to show...
No results to display...
No results to display...

Sunday, 28th April, 2013

  • 07:03 PM - narayan quoted jedavis in post Gamehackery: Campaign Manager Features
    I've been searching and reading up on what I can learn about campaign manager for this site. It would be nice to post up all my world data on the same site that hosts a popular forum to recruit players. I've been using Obsidian Portal for a while and its been ok, but difficult to learn for a non computer-guru like myself. This Realm Works software looks cool, but I haven't heard any mention of how expensive it will be? If money is no option, there is lots of world building software available from ProFantasy Ltd. Remember them? You can buy everything they make for just $620! :eek: I only knew one guy who bought a bunch of ProFantasy software and really wasn't able to learn how to use it very easily. (I don't blame him, neither would I) He spent much more time trying to use the software then actually creating anything with it and that's what I worry about with Realm Works, or Campaign Manager, or anything else... I'm already struggling with obsidian portal. Makes me long for the days when I...

Wednesday, 13th March, 2013

  • 12:33 PM - Arkhandus quoted jedavis in post D&DN going down the wrong path for everyone.
    I dunno, man. Does anybody still play 3.0 as opposed to 3.5, PF, or other 3.x+ derivatives (meant as an honest question, not as rhetoric)? The mistake Wizards made with Essentials (in my view) was marketing it as a supplement rather than an upgrade. Yes, there would have been much butthurt. But there already was a ton of butthurt about 'essentials being 4.5', and if they were going to generate that, they may as well have gone all the way and made it true. Rather than saying "guys we goofed, here's a better version, please buy it because it will fix things with your game (and we're shifting Encounters and other official events to it anyway)", they did something more like "here's a variant with some simplified options." Not as compelling a sales pitch. *raises hand* I do! I still run 3.0 D&D. :D Started a new weekly game last year. And ran 3.0 for several years into 3.5's run, until I had to take a break from gaming for half a year or so, after which I ran some d20 Modern/Future and...
  • 09:53 AM - JustinAlexander quoted jedavis in post D&DN going down the wrong path for everyone.
    The mistake Wizards made with Essentials (in my view) was marketing it as a supplement rather than an upgrade. They made a lot of mistakes with Essentials: The product line was confusing, expensive, and (as you say) divisive. It accomplished none of the things WotC claimed they were trying to accomplish with it. The entire thing was badly bungled, represented a huge missed opportunity for the company, and basically sealed 4E's coffin. The more I think about it, the more I think the very mentality that the design team is taking is going to doom the product. I'm forced to agree. 5th Edition is looking pretty much exactly like what I suspected it would look like: A commercially non-viable compromise between classic D&D and 4E. Back in January 2012, I speculated that the obvious goal of 5E would be to re-unify the splintered D&D fanbase. But in trying to achieve that, WotC, ultimately, faces an immutable truth: No reboot edition of an RPG has ever succeeded unless there is clear, deep, and...
  • 08:19 AM - Li Shenron quoted jedavis in post D&DN going down the wrong path for everyone.
    Does anybody still play 3.0 as opposed to 3.5, PF, or other 3.x+ derivatives (meant as an honest question, not as rhetoric)? I do! Well technically I don't because as I said previously, 3ed in general is very time-consuming for the DM, and unfortunately these days I cannot afford to spend much time. Anyway, if I get to run some game these days it is 5e because I want to be part of the playtesting process. But if I had all the time I wanted to prepare and run games of D&D, it would be 3.0, not any later version of it, although I might of course have some house rules either for setting/gameworld purposes or to adapt to a specific gaming group's style, preferences and misbehaviours too.
  • 12:21 AM - Jester David quoted jedavis in post D&DN going down the wrong path for everyone.
    I dunno, man. Does anybody still play 3.0 as opposed to 3.5, PF, or other 3.x+ derivatives (meant as an honest question, not as rhetoric)? Yes. Quite a few people never upgraded. Or upgraded slowly. You're never going to get a 100% upgrade rate. Ask MicroSoft about that. Many people find the system that works for them and only upgrade if forced or skip a few changes. The mistake Wizards made with Essentials (in my view) was marketing it as a supplement rather than an upgrade. Yes, there would have been much butthurt. But there already was a ton of butthurt about 'essentials being 4.5', and if they were going to generate that, they may as well have gone all the way and made it true. Rather than saying "guys we goofed, here's a better version, please buy it because it will fix things with your game (and we're shifting Encounters and other official events to it anyway)", they did something more like "here's a variant with some simplified options." Not as compelling a sales pitch. They wer...

Tuesday, 12th March, 2013

  • 06:33 PM - Celebrim quoted jedavis in post D&DN going down the wrong path for everyone.
    I dunno, man. Does anybody still play 3.0 as opposed to 3.5, PF, or other 3.x+ derivatives (meant as an honest question, not as rhetoric)? What I'm playing is sufficiently different to any RAW that it is difficult to answer, "Yes.", but of the 3.X+ options, 3.0 is the one I feel is most well concieved, the one I'd choose to play RAW, and the one my current game is forked off. It has a few 3.5 inspired things - Heal and Haste, for example - but the majority of innovation and change in 3.5 degraded the integrity of the game, increased imbalance, or pointlessly increased complexity and generally was IMO ill-concieved. WotC lost me as a customer at 3.5, although granted, I was already at that point more of a Green Ronin customer than WotC to the extent that I was relying heavily on anyone for expansion beyond the core rules simply because Green Ronin had higher production standards IMO than WotC. Really, after the original PH, DMG, and MM1 for 3e - all of which were amazing - WotC didn'...
  • 02:57 PM - Jester David quoted jedavis in post D&DN going down the wrong path for everyone.
    Eh, I still think they could appeal to the 4e audience by taking what is core to 4e, keeping it, and cutting down the fat and slowness and huge number of powers and whatnot. Essentials did not go far enough. Make a new 4e, 4e-er than 4e. Performing a fourier transform, if you will. You don't think that even if it was a perfect update of 4e that fixed the math and sped up play it would still only reach a portion of the audience of 4e? That many would dismiss it as 4.5 and say they already bought those books? A retread of an edition will only every capture a portion of the original edition. Plus, the 4e numbers were not good. They started strong but started sagging quickly. Hence Essentials in the first place. They'd didn't change the entire line and design of the game just for giggles. That was the attempt to save 4e. And it failed so bad it cost the head of the D&D brand his job. Maybe a different 4e-style product might have worked. But trying that now would be doing the same thing they've...
  • 06:18 AM - Iosue quoted jedavis in post D&DN going down the wrong path for everyone.
    Honestly I think it would be preferable to provide support for multiple lines. D&D once had Basic and Advanced branches, so it's not historically unprecedented. Wizards would garner more goodwill from the fanbases of previous editions by putting out new content for several editions concurrently than trying for a grand unification scheme, IMO. Well, set aside the fact that WotC's reprinted 1e, 2e, and 3e, and is offering PDF (and some reprinted) products from over D&D's history, D&D and AD&D were not as distinct as 2e and 3e are, or even 3e and 4e. The products were essentially interchangable. The basic, core rules were the same: attributes worked the same, saves worked the same, the combat systems worked the same. People bought AD&D adventures for the D&D games, and probably as many or more AD&D players played through the B-series as D&D players did. The big difference between the lines was optional subsystems. In effect it was pretty much like what Mearls is suggesting for Next. You h...

jedavis's Downloads

  Filename Total Downloads Rating Files Uploaded Last Updated

Most Recent Favorite Generators/Tables

View All Favorites