WotC Seeks Unity with a New Edition

Ahnehnois · Jan 10, 2012

Nemesis Destiny said:
How many anti-WotC people are now dancing in the streets saying, "I told you so!" right now? Quite a few. These are the same folks that were alienated and annoyed by the piss-poor marketing surrounding 4e's launch. Now they're saying, "we were right all along; 4e is badwrongfun. haha!"

Sorry, but two wrongs don't make a right.

How about three or more? 4e didn't work. Businesswise or creatively. Then again, some people enjoy it. The same was true for 3.5. The reason for 4e in the first place was that 3.5 was losing steam in the marketplace and some problems had emerged with how the game played. PF is just a sideways step from 3.5. 3e was introduced because 2e had been run into the ground. And so on. Why should any of these games be immune to civil, reasoned criticism?

Every version of D&D has severely broken mechanics, mixed quality art and presentation, and business decisions behind it that are debatable at best. Why can't this be the point of commonality? Everyone can criticize equally.

Walking Dad · Jan 10, 2012

I actually like the Savage World model more than the GURPS one (I think there is a difference.

Interesting citation from the Forbes site. It implies you drop miniatures for "lots of fighting". For what do you want miniatures then? Social games? Trapfinding?

frankthedm · Jan 10, 2012

Morrus said:
Yikes, man! I know you don't work there any more, but wow!

He at least waited until the next edition was announced. Heck my paranoid delusions are making me suspect Wotc may have told their ex employees "You can throw 4e under the bus now". Statements like the Rouse's and The Escapist's revealing the financial reasons for 4E's inception tie too well together. I know seeing this stuff made me a lot angrier at 4E.

Walking Dad · Jan 10, 2012

Ahnehnois said:
...

Every version of D&D has severely broken mechanics, mixed quality art and presentation, and business decisions behind it that are debatable at best. Why can't this be the point of commonality? Everyone can criticize equally.

Because he clarified a few posts later he wasn't speaking about mechanics and being a 4e fan.

Scott_Rouse said:
My statement about the game being broken is more a commentary on the environment in which 4e currently lives (play & business).

...

To add to that, I am a pretty big 4e fanboi. It is my favorite D&D rules system and I wish I had more time to play in a campaign.

@Scott_Rouse  Can you please add the clarification to your original post to avoid further misinterpretation? Just for the sake of clarity for people not reading all your following posts. Thanks!

Nemesis Destiny · Jan 10, 2012

Ahnehnois said:
How about three or more? 4e didn't work. Businesswise or creatively.

A business case can be made, as I said, but creatively? Sorry, that's just as meaningless as saying 3.x is BadWrongFun.

Then again, some people enjoy it.

Indeed. Lots of people. Perhaps not enough to make 50 million dollars for Hasborg in poor economic times, but that doesn't make it a creative failure. Financial, maybe, but creative... no. Especially since that's an extremely subjective thing.

The same was true for 3.5. The reason for 4e in the first place was that 3.5 was losing steam in the marketplace and some problems had emerged with how the game played. PF is just a sideways step from 3.5. 3e was introduced because 2e had been run into the ground. And so on. Why should any of these games be immune to civil, reasoned criticism?

They shouldn't be, and aren't. What was your point? I'm not saying that 4e is without its flaws and should be immune to criticism - no system falls under that description. What I am saying, is that it's a little ironic (and in poor taste) that the folks whose noses are out of joint over 4e's poor marketing at launch are the ones casting all the stones right now.

Every version of D&D has severely broken mechanics, mixed quality art and presentation, and business decisions behind it that are debatable at best. Why can't this be the point of commonality? Everyone can criticize equally.

Sure, but that's not what we're seeing here, is it? This news is being taken as an excuse to take cheap shots at the boogey man.

DaveMage · Jan 10, 2012

catsclaw227 said:
Now... I see the editions noted like this occasionally. Sometimes from 4e players, but mostly from people who don't play 4e (or at least don't play much).

Do you need the PHB, DMG, and MM if you have the Essentials products? (I was told "no".)

If the answer is "no", it's a new edition. It may be perfectly compatible with 4.0, but it's a new edition.

And, it doesn't matter if one plays 4.0E - it matters to the people that *don't* play 4.0E - it causes yet more edition confusion.

Scott_Rouse · Jan 10, 2012

talok55 said:
I have to ask. At what point in 4E's life cycle did you come to personally realize that the game was completely , irrevocabley borked?

As a playable game it is no more borked than OD&D, AD&D, 3.X, etc. If the game is fun for you then keep playing it.

Jasperak · Jan 10, 2012

While you are welcome to debate, name calling is not civil and won't be tolerated.

-Stalker0

frankthedm · Jan 10, 2012

nothing to see here...

bhandelman · Jan 10, 2012

Alan Shutko said:
Not in my circle of friends. A whole bunch of split off from the 4e game and went pathfinder. Right now, neither the 4e players nor the PF players are playing in the others' games.

Your selective quoting missed the part that said "Where I game". I wasn't saying everyone in the world that now plays PF also plays 4e, I was saying where I specifically play. My circle of friends could care less about what edition they are playing, but I was using it as an example. That doesn't mean I believe no one plays Pathfinder without also being a 4e fan or that all 4e players also play Pathfinder.