What's on your mind?
+ Log in or register to post
Results 221 to 230 of 511
Thursday, 26th April, 2012, 10:26 PM #221
Guide (Lvl 11)
“I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everyone.”
- EN World
- has no influence
- on advertisings
- that are displayed by
- Google Adsense
Thursday, 26th April, 2012, 10:42 PM #222
Time Agent (Lvl 24)
- Join Date
- Jan 2002
- Read 20 Reviews
- Blog Entries
ø Ignore Morrus
Thursday, 26th April, 2012, 10:44 PM #223
The Great Druid (Lvl 17)
- Join Date
- Sep 2004
- Berlin NJ
- Read 0 Reviews
ø Ignore Scribble
I think that's the REAL goal of 5e. Not really to make a game that we all sit around singing kumbaya this is the greatest game ever... But to make one where at least people hopefully can't use as proof that one style is more valid then another.
Thursday, 26th April, 2012, 11:09 PM #224
Magsman (Lvl 14)
This is an interesting development.
On the one hand, as a 4e supporter, albeit one who has played and enjoyed all editions of D&D, I find this news somewhat positive, as most of the things he'd written in L&L, I didn't care for.
On the other hand, I've really liked some of his stuff in the past, so the fact that he's leaving is a blow to the creative potential of the project, and a certain PR disaster as it is unfolding now.
Having said all that, I'd like to formally distance myself from any insinuation of being an "4venger" - which seems to be the label you get if you state any form of dislike toward 3.x design preferences. I don't like 3.x any more; I had my fun with it, but would like to move on, but I don't want to see those who still like it excluded. That was the true promise of 5e, which, unfortunately, just became a little less likely with this news, and largely for silly reasons.
Good luck, Monte, and good luck 5e team - you'll both need it.
Thursday, 26th April, 2012, 11:10 PM #225
Magsman (Lvl 14)
savage worlds to give D&D next a try.
Thursday, 26th April, 2012, 11:20 PM #226
Thaumaturgist (Lvl 9)
I have to say that I take Monte's departure as good news. As a fan of how 4E does things, Monte never seemed to "get it" in regards to what someone like me wants out of D&D, and when that somebody has "D&DNext lead designer" in their job description it doesn't inspire confidence.
Thursday, 26th April, 2012, 11:30 PM #227
Minor Trickster (Lvl 4)
Pathfinder players such as me have Pathfinder, a game that's already pitched to our preferences; why should I or other Pathfinder players switch to another system that incorporates a bunch of things we either don't like or don't care about? The same is true for fans of any other edition.
There has to be more of a draw to 5e than just the imprimatur of D&D. That's not enough for people who've gone different directions; maybe it was once, but it sure isn't now. We've already taken the emotional step of walking away from the brand to play our preferred flavor of the game. Many of us aren't willing to make significant sacrifices of what we like just to say we play D&D.
Upon reflection, I'm not even sure what 5e could bring to the table to "unify the community." Because of the modular approach, we'll all still be playing different games anyway; what's going to make us give up what we've got to return to a brand that doesn't represent what we want?
Friday, 27th April, 2012, 12:23 AM #228
Waghalter (Lvl 7)
Pathfinder's by a significant margin. That's an almost unthinkable reversal spurred in large measure by the continuing popularity of 3.5's mechanics. And none of those market realities have changed one iota as a result of Monte's departure, which doesn't appear to have been primarily driven by design differences anyway.
Like you, I think 4e is a solid system that hasn't gotten a fair shake from some elements of the gaming community. But it is absolutely inevitable that 5e won't fully reflect the preferences of 4e fans. WotC does "get" what 4e fans want; they just aren't large enough in terms of numbers to be able to carry a new edition, no matter how much we might wish it could be otherwise.
One guy in my gaming group is apoplectic about this, arguing that 3e "Grognards" sabotaged an objectively superior 4e and are now being rewarded for their intransigence with a new edition. I have some sympathy for his point of view, but the fact is that WotC wouldn't be taking this approach -- which amounts to a huge "egg on face" moment for a lot of current and former employees -- if the numerically large 3e/Pathfinder community weren't doing such a number on D&D sales.
What I think each of us can and should do is let our voices be heard regarding the aspects of 4e that merit retention in any new edition. Just because 4e underperformed from a sales perspective doesn't make it a "bad" ruleset, and if 5e truly is going to unify the fanbase, it needs to draw good ideas from every edition and not automatically reject those that happened to be part of 4e. Themes, at-wills, and greater tactical versatility for non-casters are three that immediately come to my mind as 4e design elements that should be kept; doubtless other people have other favorites. Even if -- especially if -- WotC threw out too much of 3e in crafting 4e, it's important not to make the same mistake now by throwing out too much of what works in 4e.
Friday, 27th April, 2012, 12:36 AM #229
Superhero (Lvl 15)
This does not bode well. I was really quite happy that Monte was heading the design team as that meant for me D&DN was going to be designed differently than D&D has been since he left. At least someone was needed to counterbalance the design-think that has led to such mixed results. Good and bad, both philosophies could use the countervailing wind. I'm not going to buy an updated or retrofitted 4e essentials game. I like what they are continuing to say, but I have still not seen any solid material, so it's wait and see.
I have no idea why Mr. Cook has actually left the project, but I wish him the very best and will be checking out whatever other projects he has in store for us.
Friday, 27th April, 2012, 01:02 AM #230
Thaumaturgist (Lvl 9)