D&D 5E My happiness or yours.

[Dungeoneer]

As for "having to endure 4th edition" (do you really have to take shots at it in every single thread you post??), who held a gun to your head? The idea that you "had to" anything with 4e is ludicrous. Don't like it? Stick to 3.5. Or play Pathfinder. Or go back to 1e. Or play a retroclone. Or od&d. Or 2e. Or heck, even switch systems to Savage Worlds or World of Darkness or TORG. There were plenty of other options, and good ones at that. If 4e kept kicking your dog, why didn't you leave it behind?

THIS.

4e marked probably the first time in D&D history where the previous edition continued to be supported and expanded while it was in release. Most folks who didn't enjoy the direction 4e took quickly realized that Pathfinder was just 3.75 and quickly moved on to it. But apparently... not XKVD.

Granted, if he had moved on these forums would not be half so entertaining.

 

[steenan]

For me, the whole matter has little to do with happiness.

We're talking about a commercial product - about paying for something to fulfill some needs.

Either a game is good enough for my specific needs and preferences that I judge it worth the listed price or not.


I'm not emotionally invested in what product WotC offers. That's also why I don't consider any compromises. If they make a game good enough FOR ME - they'll get my money. If not, I'll keep playing what I play now. There are a lot of fun games out there.

 

[Umbran]

Well seeing as Wizards of the Coast like to quiet some of their fans instead of listening, or possibly fear what some might say, due to some threads being completely erased, I figured I would post it here for discussion.

As an official note - if the discussion does not stay polite and friendly, and free of edition warring, it'll get shut down here too.

I had to endure 4th edition and now I feel it's my turn to be happy if a compromise can't be met. I was told I'm being selfish for feeling this way, but I feel I am just being realistic

Sorry, but from my perspective, this is not a realistic position, as it is based upon a false assumption.

This position hinges on the phrase, "it's my turn." This indicates a sense of entitlement. We, as consumers, are not entitled to anything from the company. If they make a product we like, we buy it. If not, we don't buy. And that's where it ends. Previous business with them doesn't mean they are under obligation to serve your particular desires in the future.

WotC has tens and hundreds of thousands of customers, if not millions. They cannot, as a practical matter, be under obligation to serve our desires in such a manner.

 

[EnglishLanguage]

WotC has tens and hundreds of thousands of customers, if not millions. They cannot, as a practical matter, be under obligation to serve our desires in such a manner.

Especially problematic when large chunks of those customers have contradicting and mutually exclusive wants and desires.

 

[Halivar]

For me, the whole matter has little to do with happiness.

We're talking about a commercial product - about paying for something to fulfill some needs.

Either a game is good enough for my specific needs and preferences that I judge it worth the listed price or not.


I'm not emotionally invested in what product WotC offers. That's also why I don't consider any compromises. If they make a game good enough FOR ME - they'll get my money. If not, I'll keep playing what I play now. There are a lot of fun games out there.

Not to pick nits, but it seems that if it's "good enough", then it doesn't necessarily need to be perfect, and therefore you would be willing to compromise in areas of lesser significance to you.

This a far more reasonable position than I perceive the OP taking. There is no "good enough." It's either exactly what he wanted, or it's rubbish.

 

[Halivar]

Especially problematic when large chunks of those customers have contradicting and mutually exclusive wants and desires.

Everybody wants to play D&D because it's been "the" game for so long, but only if it's exactly the game they want, otherwise it's an object of scorn. No one pours as much energy into indie RPG's that aren't their cup of tea.

When I was 5, I had two friends that didn't get along. They both demanded that I stop playing with the other one. I tried splitting the difference, and so they both hated me and stopped being my friends. It's kind of like that, I think.

 

[francisca]

As for "having to endure 4th edition" (do you really have to take shots at it in every single thread you post??), who held a gun to your head? The idea that you "had to" anything with 4e is ludicrous.

Yeah, seriously. Please tell us how the WotC goon squad came to your residence and forced you to endure 4e.....I need some adventure hooks for a Top Secret S.I. game.

I mean, I was somehow able to avoid 4e after I played the initial demo from the gameday when it came out. I didn't even think about it for a couple years prior to 5e being announced.

(I did find it odd that after I posted on FaceBook that I didn't care for 4e, that some of my old Grenadier lead minis from the 80s mysteriously melted, some of my old Gamescience dice were reduced to powder, and somebody scrawled "MEARLS WUZ HEAR!!" across the Efreet's face on my 1e DMG. But that still didn't phase me. I essentially skipped 4e.)

 

[Umbran]

Not to pick nits, but it seems that if it's "good enough", then it doesn't necessarily need to be perfect, and therefore you would be willing to compromise in areas of lesser significance to you.

My father had a saying - "Don't make perfect the enemy of good."

 

[steenan]

Not to pick nits, but it seems that if it's "good enough", then it doesn't necessarily need to be perfect, and therefore you would be willing to compromise in areas of lesser significance to you.

When I say "good enough" in this context, I have a very clear criterium in mind.

The game does not have to be perfect. I can't even determine what "perfect" means here, because I play many different games and I can't say that any of them is globally better than others.

But each game I play is very good at something. At something I like. One forces players into tough moral choices, another one focuses on true heroism, another has high-powered conflicts on metaphoric level. And so on.

To be "good enough", Next must beat at least one of these games at its niche. Will it have better tools for player-driven play than Fate? More balance and tactics than 4e? Faster and more focused play than Dungeon World? Better tools for exploratory play than Mistborn Adventure Game? More heroism than Mouse Guard?
(I don't think it tries to compete with Nobilis in metaphysics or with Dogs in the Vineyard in focus on moral choices)

Next does not have to do it all. If it's average in many areas, I won't buy it - because for each single game I want to play, I have something better. But if it beats what I have at it's strength, WotC has my money.

 

[tsadkiel]

You know, I ultimately didn't care for 3rd or 4th Edition, which I think means it's actually my turn to be happy. And I'm okay with options for everybody.