If WotC deliver on all their promises...

triqui said:

I bet english is not your first language, so I'll try to help:

hy·po·thet·i·cal   [hahy-puh-thet-i-kuhl]
adjective Also, hy·po·thet·ic .
1.
assumed by hypothesis; supposed: a hypothetical case.


hy·poth·e·sis   [hahy-poth-uh-sis, hi-]
noun, plural hy·poth·e·ses  [-seez]
1.
a proposition, or set of propositions, set forth as an explanation for the occurrence of some specified group of phenomena, either asserted merely as a provisional conjecture to guide investigation (working hypothesis) or accepted as highly probable in the light of established facts.
2.
a proposition assumed as a premise in an argument.

Click to expand...

Actually, English is my first language (one way you can tell is that I capitalize the word because it is a proper noun). I even know fancy words like:

dupe [doop]
noun
1. a person who is easily deceived or fooled; gull.
2. a person who unquestioningly or unwittingly serves a cause or another person: a dupe of the opponents.

If there is a problem, report the post by using the little triangular "!" at the left of every post. Don't insult someone back. It just irritates your friendly moderators and makes an argument worse. -- Piratecat

DimitriX said:

Actually, English is my first language (one way you can tell is that I capitalize the word because it is a proper noun). I even know fancy words like:

dupe [doop]
noun
1. a person who is easily deceived or fooled; gull.
2. a person who unquestioningly or unwittingly serves a cause or another person: a dupe of the opponents.

Click to expand...

Using the word dupe in this context would seem to back up the previous posters assumption, rather than you refuting it.

Unless you are referring to yourself as a person who is currently and unwittingly serving the cause of DCC, by comming to this thread and crapping all over it.

DimitriX said:

Actually, English is my first language (one way you can tell is that I capitalize the word because it is a proper noun). I even know fancy words like:

dupe [doop]
noun
1. a person who is easily deceived or fooled; gull.
2. a person who unquestioningly or unwittingly serves a cause or another person: a dupe of the opponents.

Click to expand...

Then the problem is not the language. It is the comprehension. Or brain, maybe.

Engage Mod Glower.

That is enough. From all parties.

Please continue the thread without the insults.

DimitriX said:

I vote "No".

First, I don't really think they're going to be able to deliver on all of their promises, so I think the question is moot in the first place.

Second, I don't like WotC as a company and I don't want them to get anymore of my money. As I've said in other places, DCC is my DDN and I don't need WotC's game system just because it has the words "Dungeons and Dragons" on the cover.

Click to expand...

Since you ignored the OP question & whole point, and admit to hating WOTC, why on earth are you wasting your time on 5e or any D&D threads?

It would be pointless to ignore 5e if it lives up to its stated design goals. I will certainly buy the core books then play it for a while.

I am genuinely surprised by the results. Happily surprised, I might add. If the wizards at the coast can actually pull off all the goals they're talking about in their 5e articles then it seems that over 80% of players will play it.

Of course, this is all just pie-in-the-sky of course because of the nature of such polls, and the speculative aspect of the questions, but it's still somewhat indicative of people's general attitudes and so I have to say that I'm rather looking forward to and hoping that 5e is the success that it could possibly be; it would be nice to have a much larger group of players to draw on for games and would also be nicer without all the antagonism between edition warriors.

In response to the OP's question, I have to be honest: no, I wouldn't stop using my current system of choice (Pathfinder) for Fifth Edition.

Why? Because quite simply, WotC's promises of making the game better aren't enough for me. I think the game I have plays well enough right now that - combined with the honest assessment that no game will ever be without flaw (to me) - promises of how smooth it runs or how balanced it is aren't going to be enough to woo me. Interest me, yes (maybe even enough to lift an idea or two for my home game), but not so much that I'll toss over my current game based on the strength of that alone.

To me, the ideal situation, the best of the best, would be if you had the level of campaign world support that 2E had, combined with the mechanics of 3.X/Pathfinder. I want the in-depth (by which I mean more than one book with a light overview; I want a line of products for the) worlds of Ravenloft, Dark Sun, Planescape, Greyhawk, and more. I want them written with the same degree of insight and in-game detail that they had back then, and I want them with the mechanical unity, but still open possibilities, of the d20 System.

Is this viable for WotC as a company? I don't know, but the common wisdom suggests not, as we still hear about how TSR fractured their own market by publishing so many campaign settings simultaneously. But in all honesty, I don't care. This is my dream for how the perfect D&D would look, and short of that I'm having a hard time imagining that promises of a smoother, faster set of rules could win me over - it didn't last time, after all, so why should it this time?

I am probably the perfect sucker, er, potential customer for D&DN. By this point I can pretty much feel the flaws in any edition of D&D I'm playing. For some (3e/Pathfinder) the flaws are so glaring I just don't bother playing. I really, really want to have a new favorite edition.

If they can deliver the ease of play of the older editions, with some of the flexibility of the newer editions...I will be there.

I don't have a preferred edition. Systems and editions are chosen based in the kind of game I want to run at the moment.

Sure I'll give it a shot.

So far WotC kind of promised to make everyone (3.5 lovers and 4e lovers) happy and iron out some persistant flaws of both approaches along the way.

This suspiciously sounds like a promise to make everyone happy.

So I guess, me being part of everyone, the answer is "yes, I will" by default