-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
GTS 2009 D&D Seminar - the Rouse discusses D&D
- Thread starter sunmaster
- Start date
- Status
Blizzard has a fan submitted comic thing for World of Warcraft. I don't know whether enough people visit the Wizards site to make it work, but you could have prizes like a free copy of that months book and such.
Furluge
Explorer
Scott,
I'm in a gaming group that's had a successful RPGA gaming group going with a decent number of home games, so the split that's occurred is something I've had the, unfortunate, experience of first hand.
I think the largest problem you're having is with Pathfinder. Pathfinder seems to have become the, "Disgruntled with 4e? Play this!" product. Which is kind of sad, because most of our people who don't play 4e with us, even just for RPGA, don't really give it much of a chance. Most played it for one or two sessions when the game first came out and never came back and went to play Pathfinder.
Of the players that weren't interested in playing 4e one refuses to play because he takes personal affront to the fact that 4e was being developed and feels lied to that it wasn't announced until it was done. Four are are old school players who don't want to try the new system. Their common complaints are, "Spell casters aren't spell casters anymore.", "Everyone is identical now.", and "This game is pen and paper WoW." The last arguement seems to be focused around the fact that players have powers, that monsters and players have roles, and fighters can mark. The last player in the group refuses to play 4e because he can't power game like he used to. We don't miss him not playing.
They're all playing Pathfinder now.
In additon, one or two are less happy with D&D 4e because it got rid of lots of non-combat abilities and crafting. For example, my DM hates that fact that because spells like Wall of Iron are missing he can't calculate how much iron his crazy abandoned bored wizard NPC can will into being so it can be smelted down and turned into weapons to drive an entire magical economy. He also wonders more mundane things too like how the economy would work for forging magic weapons, ritual scrolls, etc. if the relevant rituals don't have any cost savings in them, etc. Others don't like the fact that there aren't mechanics for other obscure mundane things. (Note: If I remind them that we barely ever used those things in 3.5 for fear of "gimping" ourselves or suggest a skill challenge this doesn't seem to help.)
Hope this gives you a nice snippit of what's going on out there Scott.
I'm in a gaming group that's had a successful RPGA gaming group going with a decent number of home games, so the split that's occurred is something I've had the, unfortunate, experience of first hand.
I think the largest problem you're having is with Pathfinder. Pathfinder seems to have become the, "Disgruntled with 4e? Play this!" product. Which is kind of sad, because most of our people who don't play 4e with us, even just for RPGA, don't really give it much of a chance. Most played it for one or two sessions when the game first came out and never came back and went to play Pathfinder.
Of the players that weren't interested in playing 4e one refuses to play because he takes personal affront to the fact that 4e was being developed and feels lied to that it wasn't announced until it was done. Four are are old school players who don't want to try the new system. Their common complaints are, "Spell casters aren't spell casters anymore.", "Everyone is identical now.", and "This game is pen and paper WoW." The last arguement seems to be focused around the fact that players have powers, that monsters and players have roles, and fighters can mark. The last player in the group refuses to play 4e because he can't power game like he used to. We don't miss him not playing.
They're all playing Pathfinder now.
In additon, one or two are less happy with D&D 4e because it got rid of lots of non-combat abilities and crafting. For example, my DM hates that fact that because spells like Wall of Iron are missing he can't calculate how much iron his crazy abandoned bored wizard NPC can will into being so it can be smelted down and turned into weapons to drive an entire magical economy. He also wonders more mundane things too like how the economy would work for forging magic weapons, ritual scrolls, etc. if the relevant rituals don't have any cost savings in them, etc. Others don't like the fact that there aren't mechanics for other obscure mundane things. (Note: If I remind them that we barely ever used those things in 3.5 for fear of "gimping" ourselves or suggest a skill challenge this doesn't seem to help.)
Hope this gives you a nice snippit of what's going on out there Scott.
Because it's awesome.
wedgeski
Adventurer
It's cool, but as an aside, the trouble with their competitions, I find, is that their user-base is so massive that there are inevitably professional artists in there, and the quality of the winners is absurd, on a par with what Blizzard produce themselves. And Blizzard are renowned for having some of the best artistic design in the business!
IMO synnergy is where Wizards should be looking. They've stumbled upon a huge winner by interfacing with the Penny Arcade guys... they need to make the most of that they can, and find similar avenues to investigate. I've read PA and Wil Wheaton's blog for years, to suddenly see those excellent geeks at the heart of the D&D machine puts a big smile on my face. Both sites have massive gamer cred which I'm sure will put money in Wizards pockets over the next few months.
So, Scott, don't over-do it, don't over-schedule it, keep people hungry for more, and give whomever executed the deal with PA and WW a raise immediately!
Brown Jenkin
First Post
The thing was though that the GTS seminar said that they were going to focus on existing players, and Scott said in this thread that they would have been benefited by at least attempting conversion documents.
I think it is a perfectly valid question as to whether this marketing to existing players means that they are going to come out with new products that interest 3.x/Pathfinder players or whether that means continuing to try and convince us that 4e is better than what we are currently playing as it stands. The only thing I am fairly certain about is that almost all D&D players know 4e exists now so letting us know it exists is probably not what is meant by Scott.
Scott_Rouse
Explorer
Not quite. Existing fan: this group includes existing players (of any edition currently in a game), video game players ( NWN2, BG2, DDO etc), novels readers (RA Salvatore, Weis & Hickman, Ed Greenwood etc), and lapsed players (this group alone is millions of players in the game's 35 year history).
Essentially use the newness of 4e as an entry point back into the game to potential or current customers who don't need to be told what D&D is (unlike new players who may have heard of D&D but know little to nothing about it).
It is a little of both. We will continue to market the existing 4e products and the system as a whole. Every month as we add new stuff this evolves but at it base there are still some pretty common themes that won't change much (ease of DMing, party roles, etc). We won't be doing this at the expense of another system instead we will be showing more of how this is a D&D experience and not talk about what is different.
We will also be introducing new stuff that either fans or we feel is missing (familiars, classes, worlds, adventure style, D&Di tools etc) and cool stuff that is completely new including brand new classes, races, adventures etc.
And to answer the implied question this does not mean going back and supporting older editions.
I'm going to disagree. Pathfinder is just one avenue for those that dislike 4e. However, not everyone that dislikes 4e are going to Pathfinder. There are many people, based upon the alpha and beta, are finding Pathfinder changes to be as unsatisfying as 4e and are choosing to stick with or return to 3e (assuming they don't leave d20, DND, or gaming altogether).
If anything, the biggest challenge is the OGL of which Pathfinder is just one part. The products under the OGL (including Unearthed Arcana) allow for a wide customization of 3e and d20 in general.
Through the OGL, one can find options to give fighter types variety in combat, new spell systems, and changing the rules for magic item creation and not require xp. I sure that there are probably options for doing away with level drain, xp for casting certain spells, and save or die . There is even the upcoming Trailblazer from Bad Axe which will have options designed to help the DM fix various issues that some DMs and groups have with 3e including prep time.
I'd say one or two sessions is giving it a chance. That is a good enough time to get a feel for the game. They just are not enjoying the game for whatever reason.
For those not trying it, perhaps they have had experience with various 4e mechanics through Tome of Battle, Star Wars, or other games and know from experience that such mechanics are dealbreakers.
I personally dislike
a) per encounter mechanics
b) skill systems that give automatic increases per level rather than use skill points.
These two factors alone are going to be issues with my enjoyment of the game (yes, for myself, the mechanics are just as important as the people I am playing with).
Now, add in the following
a) rules meant to support dungeon crawl as opposed to other playstyles in general (I am looking at "Milestones" and Mearl's comments from another thread on why the currrent implementation rather than an earlier one exists);
b) how daily items work;
c) the short duration or numerous round onset of certain affects due to the save mechanics;
d) illusions doing hit points;
e) the mechanics of the ranger's animal companion which as written, imo, feels like a power rather than the existance of another creature (which was, imo, a problem with early editions of the Hero System, but something that later editons of Hero fixed and Mutants and Masterminds managed to avoid);
and several other design decisions and implementations and the game is not something I want to play despite the existance of some implementations and changes that I prefer to 3e.
The point of the above is that various people want different things of rpgs. For some people, 4e delivers those things while for others it delivers an experience that they don't like. For others, it will fall in between and players will base their decisions to play or not play based on the degree to which they can overlook the areas for which it falls short.
Last edited:
Treebore
First Post
Thats a shame. I realize WOTC doesn't want to fragment their consumer base, but the reality is its already fragmented, has always been fragmented, and there is some pretty good evidence its growing, along all editions. So I would prefer WOTC tap into that, rather than continue to ignore it.
Treebore
First Post
Could we quit saying "dislike". I don't know how many of us actually "dislike" 4E. I think there are a fair number like me, who thinks its a good game, just not good enough to be one of my premiere games.
- Status
