What would WotC need to do to win back the disenchanted?

Beginning of the End · Jul 26, 2010

Ranes said:
people - I'm looking at WotC and Paizo writers in particular - who don't seem to know that there is no such word as 'foes'. Foe means enemy, singular or plural, dagnabbit!

Where on earth did you get that idea?

About five seconds of googling or the consultation of any reputable dictionary would have disabused you of the notion.

This might sound familiar, as well:

Two households, both alike in dignity,
In fair Verona, where we lay our scene,
From ancient grudge break to new mutiny,
Where civil blood makes civil hands unclean.
From forth the fatal loins of these two foes
A pair of star-cross'd lovers take their life.

While the word "foe" can refer to a collection of people, it doesn't follow that there cannot be multiple foes. It's like claiming that the word "armies" doesn't exist because one army can be made up of many people.

El Mahdi · Jul 26, 2010

Ranes said:
... who don't seem to know that there is no such word as 'foes'. Foe means enemy, singular or plural, dagnabbit!...

Apparently you haven't dowloaded the latest errata and updates from Websters Online...

Lanefan · Jul 26, 2010

Savevsdeath said:
This is pretty much how i feel too. if you don't like 4E as is, odds are you want a game that does something completely different from what 4E is designed for - which by the way is over-the-top, epic action fantasy just a step below Exalted but several steps above 3.5. If you want old dungeon crawls with fighters doing boring full attacks and vancian fire and forget magic, i dont want you, because you will basically ruin the game i love. I like that 4E is more Slayers and Ninja Scroll than Lord of the Rings or Conan.

Fine. I prefer more Lord-of-the-Rings style and good solid dungeon crawls over whatever you're referring to, as that *is* the game I love.

But all the way from post #1 - here slightly re-stated - these questions still remain:
a) how can D+D be designed so as to appeal to us both, and
b) how can WotC successfully market said design to both of us.

And answers along the lines of "it/they can't" will not do.

Lanefan

El Mahdi · Jul 26, 2010

Wicht said:
...One might as well write their own system. ...

Honestly, I think this is probably the only way for anyone to get a system that's perfect for them - but writing your own is definitely not easy (and not worth it for most). I've actually been working on writing my own version of 3E for myself (and my gaming group), and I'll tell you, I've got a new appreciation for RPG writers and designers. I don't think it's possible for any system to be perfect for everybody. I'd probably go as far as to say that the number of people who think any system is "perfect" is probably extremely small. Like you, 4E just doesn't do it for me. But even 3E isn't perfect in my opinion, and 4E has some absolutely awesome little bits that I've shamelessly stolen for my own rules.

El Mahdi · Jul 26, 2010

Lanefan said:
... these questions still remain:
a) how can D+D be designed so as to appeal to us both, and
b) how can WotC successfully market said design to both of us.

And answers along the lines of "it/they can't" will not do.

As far as a): I think "they can't" is the only answer. It's impossible to design a system in a manner that appeals to everyone.

But, as far as b): I don't believe any system is completely untenable for anyone either. As complicated as most RPG's are, and especially D&D in all of it's varied editions, I can't believe there isn't at least some part of any edition or game that will appeal to anyone. But of course, even that small part won't necessarily make the edition or game worth it for many.

But, I don't think WotC needs to market the "design" (the 4E system) to me, in order to get me as a customer. There are other things they can sell me besides 4E, and if they do, I may even end up buying the occasional 4E product. So, "they can't" market the design to me, but they can market products to me.

Primal · Jul 26, 2010

Lanefan said:
Fine. I prefer more Lord-of-the-Rings style and good solid dungeon crawls over whatever you're referring to, as that *is* the game I love.

But all the way from post #1 - here slightly re-stated - these questions still remain:
a) how can D+D be designed so as to appeal to us both, and
b) how can WotC successfully market said design to both of us.

And answers along the lines of "it/they can't" will not do.

Lanefan

After taking a closer look at the 'Essentials' previews, it looks to me your point a) is what they are trying to achieve; for example, it seems class features (beyond those gained at 1st level) seem to be back and fighter will use basic attacks boosted with certain tactical options (which, IMHO, is how they should have developed fighter in the first place). It also means that at least *some* classes won't get a huge number of slightly varied powers published in an endless stream of supplements -- I don't mind variety, but so far it has looked like the rigid "[w] + Stat damage and Effect Z"-type of power design method was chosen just to sell more books. And to add more flavour to the classes, naturally. Then again, when you have 500+ powers to pick from, many people may be "paralyzed" by such a vast number of options (I had this same problem with 3E feats and spells).

In reality, it would be pretty easy to design most 4E powers with a point-based system that would prevent you from "going nova" -- for example, by limiting points spent in single round and having certain options (Stun, Immobilized, Dominated etcetera.) become available as you progress in levels. I also think it would result in characters having more versatile tactical options without needless "hardwiring" and "power paralysis". Yet I don't think they'd go this far (maybe 5E will, though?) but I do hope they'll publish less but more versatile powers for each class. That might actually get me to buy the whole 'Essentials' line.

Hussar · Jul 26, 2010

NoWayJose said:
Hussar, I don't even know where to begin with responding to that. You issued a slew of non-sequitors that have nothing to do with anything. You get absolutely massacred by Wicht and BryanD and desperately latch on to any other meagre points you have left. I feel that if there was a reading comprehension test on the last two pages, you would have gotten an 'F'. Because if you weren't so obtuse, you'd realize that the answer to the viking/barbarian thing is just as irrelevant as the shaolin/buddhist thing. Then again, I would also get an 'F' with your posts as I find it difficult to understand what on earth you're aiming at.

Yet, funnily enough, everyone else seems to be able to understand my plain English meaning.

As Umbran said, you have fun with dueling dictionaries.