+ Log in or register to post
Results 171 to 180 of 929
Monday, 2nd July, 2012, 10:43 PM #171
Grandfather of Assassins (Lvl 19)
Some people will argue that any one of the three - Hack'n'Slash, Monty Haul or Tactics-base Minis game has been baked into any given edition; that is what they see the game having devolved into and it's very hard to argue against experiences that individual has had with the game - for good or ill."If it has stats, we can kill it." - T.G. Jackson, intro to 3rd ed Hackmaster
- EN World
- has no influence
- on adverts that
- are displayed by
- Google Adsense
Monday, 2nd July, 2012, 10:47 PM #172
Monday, 2nd July, 2012, 10:52 PM #173
Monday, 2nd July, 2012, 10:55 PM #174
Monday, 2nd July, 2012, 11:01 PM #175
Lama (Lvl 13)
I'm still having trouble understanding how 5e is supposed to appeal to anyone happy with their system, not just us 4thers. We all have our preferred rules and play experiences already. What benefits gamers who know exactly what they like buying into a unity edition predicated on compromise and reconciliation? It's even more unpalatable having to then buy modules outside of the basic rules to recapture something like our desired experience (which we already own).
I will miss the active support for 4e, what's left of it anyway, and no doubt that will draw some (maybe a lot) of people to 5. But then you see the OSR and PF crowds are already well-supported. What's the hook for them? New mechanics? Revenge? Brand longing?
I just hope the equivalent of an OSR movement of blogs and independent products develops for 4e.
Monday, 2nd July, 2012, 11:06 PM #176
Thaumaturgist (Lvl 9)
Agreed.Originally Posted by Bedrockgames
Love this idea! So simple and it gives WotC a license to print money.I actually think a better approach would have been multiple edition lines. These would still be new editions (because new is still important) but they would go in different direction. You would have a 4e style line, 3e and Ad&D style line. I personally believe this is a stronger approach than modules (and not that different from what they did with basic and AD&D before). They are already kind of doing this by having three module lines. So why anchor the mechanics to to each other when that clearly makes it harder for them to attract the different fanbases? I mean if three different groups want three different games do they really need to use the same core system?
1. Reprint/Rework Basic D&D (Some new art; homages, layout and so forth, but keep the 'feel'). Make minor tweaks where necessary. "BASIC" line.
2. Reprint/Rework AD&D. "ADVANCED" line.
3. Reprint/Rework 3rd Edition. "DRAMATIC" line (yes I'm struggling with this one)
4. Keep 4th Edition ongoing. "TACTICAL" line.
Lets say WotC make a new adventure like 'Madness of Gardmore Abbey' (to use an example). They release 4 different versions of the product. They can use the same artwork and virtually everything except the mechanical text. Make the cover and interior layouts look different - fitting in with each system.
Adventures in TSR's back catalogue can be reworked for each edition with a minimum of effort.
Monday, 2nd July, 2012, 11:06 PM #177
Scout (Lvl 6)
In a solo game having an uberpowerful character doesn't really matter as there are no other party members to share the spotlight with.
And it is something pretty easily done in earlier editions (And likely in 4E as I well, I just went about it the wrong way - Krust's solo idea looks like it should work).
But look outside the game. Real life issues involve. You can only play solo or not at all, and the GM doesn't have time to individualize adventures so if you play it is only in published adventures with little or no adaption. So the adaption has to be in the PC - rather than bring the monsters down to the level of the solo character, you have to up the character to be able to deal with the monsters.
By the way - That you again for the idea Krust - I always wanted to love 4E but never found a way to play it given my current circumstances. That would let me play 3 D&Ds now - 3rd, 4th and 5th when it comes out.
Last edited by Lord Mhoram; Monday, 2nd July, 2012 at 11:18 PM.
I'm one of the lucky ones. I married a "gamer-girl."
"Build 'em like a powergamer, but play 'em like a roleplayer." - firesnakearies
Monday, 2nd July, 2012, 11:10 PM #178
Magsman (Lvl 14)
Monday, 2nd July, 2012, 11:10 PM #179
Fan? Fair-weather gamer?
Why are you talking about D&D as if it was a sporting team? Heck, that kind of fan thinking is silly even in sports.
While I like D&D, I don't owe it anything. It is nothing more than a hobby. If a game doesn't appeal to me, I have no reason to buy it. The only reason I bought 4E was because everything about it sounded like fun. If the next edition of D&D doesn't appeal to me, I will happily pass on it.
There are plenty of other role-playing games on the market for me to try, after all, many of which I have heard good things about and sound appealing. Even if those aren't any good, I still have other hobbies to indulge.
So, if WotC wants my money, they need to create a game that appeals to me. Right now, I am leaning against a purchase. Thus, the point of this thread.
Monday, 2nd July, 2012, 11:11 PM #180
Thaumaturgist (Lvl 9)
Feel free to post as many as you think are relevant.Originally Posted by Zustiur
The math works better than any previous edition.Starting with:
6. Remove the math and start again from scratch
Like what, Weekly?7. Provide more alternatives to AEDU
I don't see how adding alternatives to AEDU is a massive game changer.