What's on your mind?
+ Log in or register to post
Results 261 to 270 of 511
Friday, 27th April, 2012, 06:22 AM #261
Thaumaturgist (Lvl 9)
I guess what I'm saying is that if you(the plural you, as I'd include those who've brought up this topic before) aren't going on about the failure of 4E to justify its replacement and/or its removal from 5E, I'm not sure where it fits into this discussion.
- EN World
- has no influence
- on advertisings
- that are displayed by
- Google Adsense
Friday, 27th April, 2012, 08:05 AM #262
Lama (Lvl 13)
Look, no one's saying anyone has to play a game they don't want to play. Jesus, that's the whole point of D&DN and its modularity. The goal, in the end, is to provide a system that can give a widest possible swath of fans what they want, and increase revenue for WotC. What is possibly wrong with that?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?
Please don't speak for all 4e fans. We don't all like the same things about 4e, and nor all at the same degree. And I say this as someone who's never even played 3e, and couOne could interpret my words in that fashion, but I don't see it that way. My issue with the 5E design team as a whole and Monte in particular was that from everything they've said about 5E until recently, they have no clue what a 4E fan wants. I fully believe they want to please 4E fans, but in their apparent ignorance they'll screw it up by focusing on things they think we want(like tactical combat) and fail to deliver what we really want(balanced rules that work, a focus on cinematic action). I don't believe they are intentionally screwing me over, I think they're misguided on what makes 4E special to the people who enjoy it and will ruin it by bringing back old stuff out of ignorance as opposed to malice.
If someone honestly wants 4e surgically removed from 5e, then 5e is not for them. The modularity and proposed wide appeal of 5e is not targeted at the hard-core extreme Edition Warriors. It's goal is not to make a single game, and playstyle that will magically unite all of the D&D fanbase. It's goal is to be pliable so that each table can play the kind of D&D they want. If someone won't play it because it's not an exact replica of 4e, it's not for them. If someone won't play because it has elements of 4e in it, it's not for them. It's for the rest of us, the silent masses that like bits of all D&D, and play our chosen editions not because they perfectly represent our ideal D&D, but because they are the closest of all the choices.In addition, I see a lot of people with a genuine hatred of 4E, and want to see all traces of it removed or at least as little of it as possible in 5E. As a 4E fan, I can accept that there will need to be some compromises made, but I don't see how you can please people who want 4E surgically removed from D&D and make a game the 4E community can accept.
Friday, 27th April, 2012, 08:36 AM #263
Scout (Lvl 6)
It uses a very narrow and arbitrary issue (Should we give character mechanical incentive to play stereotypical characters?) as staging ground to suddenly discuss a very broad issue (What is the relationship between flavor and mechanics?). Up until the last few sentences its all about whether or not dwarves should get a +2 to hit with Axes because the fluff says their awesome with axes, where then it suddenly jumps to "Should the rules represent the flavor of the story?" which is a very complicated issue with a lot of nuance to it. It then boils down said really complex issue to a single Yes/No question phrased in such a way that most people who actually care about game design will pick the Yes answer. Which most did. Of course the rules should represent the story. Why else would we use rules to tell them if not for that purpose? The reason it offended me so much is that the nature of the connection between mechanics and narrative is a big edition war point between 4E and the people who hate it, with a lot of people strawmaning the concept of "re-fluffing" to mean that the rules shouldn't mean anything at all, as opposed to the actual idea in which the rules are recognized to be abstract enough that they could represent different events within the narrative without any difference in rules interaction, and then taking advantage of that by changing the fluff to be more fitting to your tastes without breaking the suspension of disbelief. So asking the question on whether or not mechanics should be connected to flavor, in such a loaded way, struck me as a deliberate attempt to wring polling numbers against 4E. Hence why I felt it was dishonest. Looking back on it now I'm not sure if it was an deliberate act of dishonestly so much as one of stupidity and really poor writing. But here's the article for you to judge.
Whoops! Browser Settings Incompatible
Friday, 27th April, 2012, 08:53 AM #264
Lama (Lvl 13)
Here's a question:
I'm not very knowledgeable when it comes to who wrote or did what. Are there other designers involved in 3.5 that have a good reputation? Perhaps they could take up the empty chair and offer insight or a 3.5 fans perspective on the game?
I have no personal interest in 5e resembling 3.5. But, as others have pointed out, as long as I can play the game my way, I have no problem that someone else can play the same game their way.
I just want everyone to be happy!!!
(If only everyone felt that way 5e might actually work)
'I am a predator...the predator improves the race...I kill but not out of hate.'
Frank Herbert: Emperor God of Dune
Friday, 27th April, 2012, 09:23 AM #265
Myrmidon (Lvl 10)
- Join Date
- Jun 2004
- Read 2 Reviews
- Blog Entries
° Ignore Jan van Leyden
After working through the whole of this thread and trying not to get too emotional, just a two questions:
Why do we assume the designers to be soldiers or generals in the Edition War?
Why do we fear that everything Monte Cook contributed to D&DN will be eradicated from 5e?
There are a lot more thoughts crossing my mind in the last few days, not all of them fit for publication under the Grandma-rule...
Jan van Leyden
Former DDI subscriber
Friday, 27th April, 2012, 01:39 PM #266
The Grand Druid (Lvl 20)
Friday, 27th April, 2012, 01:47 PM #267
Magsman (Lvl 14)
Friday, 27th April, 2012, 01:53 PM #268
Don't like 4E? No sig for you here.
Friday, 27th April, 2012, 02:14 PM #269
Waghalter (Lvl 7)
A note on the Pathfinder/Hasbro sales argument:
1. Paizo strongly protects its book sales and makes a concerted effort to sell books. You can see this in their subscription structure. You can get a subscription to everything that comes out with a PDF; but you can not subscribe PDF only. Additionally, their watermarking does dissuade casual uploading to download sites
2. WoTC completely hosed their book sales by offering a subscription to their D&D tools with full compendium access. This may be only my observation but I'm surrounded by more players who use compendium than buy the books. Additionally, their lack of support for PDF only creates a larger illegal copy issue because anyone who does scan the books has a copy they can distribute without tagging.
In my opinion, forcing people to scan their own PDFs increases the chance something will be pirated and at the very least reduces possible income to Hasbro.
So when you start comparing sales - and you're just using book data - Yes Pathfinder is going to outsell 4e. I believe that it is regardless of number games, but I don't think the delta in unit sales was as bad as people were reporting due to the differences in how the games were sold and the lack of data coming out of certain sales channels.
Ultimately, it's obvious that part of the 5e plan was due to 4e sales. It just seems equally obvious to me that the business plan surrounding how to actually sell D&D was done far better by Paizo than Hasbro and that's the real difference between games.
Friday, 27th April, 2012, 02:15 PM #270
Waghalter (Lvl 7)
Last edited by Kobold Boots; Friday, 27th April, 2012 at 02:16 PM. Reason: Duplicate post