Zardnaar
Legend
Umm, 4ed? Like it or hate it, it is an innovation. DDI? Again, first of its kind for the hobby. Next? Lots and lots of innovation there.
What more do you want?
A D&D that doesn't suck.
Umm, 4ed? Like it or hate it, it is an innovation. DDI? Again, first of its kind for the hobby. Next? Lots and lots of innovation there.
What more do you want?
I disagree. What I see in 4e is a mix of all the fringe elements I disliked from earlier versions of D&D, with most of the stuff I do like stripped out, along with a bunch of other things appropriated from other games.Umm, 4ed? Like it or hate it, it is an innovation.
The only really innovative thing I see about it is a paywall. Similar resources and compendiums and tools are available for other games, often for free.DDI? Again, first of its kind for the hobby.
I'm not seeing it.Next? Lots and lots of innovation there.
Quite a bit.What more do you want?
A D&D that doesn't suck.
I disagree. What I see in 4e is a mix of all the fringe elements I disliked from earlier versions of D&D, with most of the stuff I do like stripped out, along with a bunch of other things appropriated from other games.
Also, to refer to @Morrus above, innovation has a positive connotation, and it's more important that something be good than simply different.
The only really innovative thing I see about it is a paywall. Similar resources and compendiums and tools are available for other games, often for free.
I'm not seeing it.
Quite a bit.
As I've said elsewhere, I want the same experience I had as a 2e player looking at 3e for the first time. The sense of "why weren't things always this way?". The quantum leap forward of mechanics. The open-ended aspiration to make a game that can do anything. The spirit of open gaming. The company doing actual research and the results being manifestly in the game. The marketing being classy. The books looking decent.
Mostly that first one, though. If I don't crack open the rules and immediately ask myself "why am I not doing things this way already?", it's not good enough.
I disagree. What I see in 4e is a mix of all the fringe elements I disliked from earlier versions of D&D, with most of the stuff I do like stripped out, along with a bunch of other things appropriated from other games.
Also, to refer to @Morrus above, innovation has a positive connotation, and it's more important that something be good than simply different.
The only really innovative thing I see about it is a paywall. Similar resources and compendiums and tools are available for other games, often for free.
I'm not seeing it.
Quite a bit.
As I've said elsewhere, I want the same experience I had as a 2e player looking at 3e for the first time. The sense of "why weren't things always this way?". The quantum leap forward of mechanics. The open-ended aspiration to make a game that can do anything. The spirit of open gaming. The company doing actual research and the results being manifestly in the game. The marketing being classy. The books looking decent.
Mostly that first one, though. If I don't crack open the rules and immediately ask myself "why am I not doing things this way already?", it's not good enough.
I agree with everything in your post except this one point. I suspect that the marketing value of the "D&D" name is still considerable despite Hasbro's many missteps. I hope that in the event that 5e does as well as 4e, Paizo will be in a position to buy it. Lets keep our fingers crossed.
Not really. As I noted above, what I see around me in real life are a group of twenty-something, creative, intelligent people. Most of them know nothing of rpgs, which is a shame. Most that do are strictly 3e players, some play 2e or CoC or some other non-D&D rpg. None of them have played the "current" game for a while, and most of them have never heard of any of the specific controversies associated with 4e or 5e. As far as I know, the typical D&D player (not the typical online message board avatar) isn't even aware of the 5e playtest. These are people who used to call the WotC store daily when a book came out to see if the new release was in, but now they've just decided there's nothing worthwhile there. I think that's a referendum on WotC, and I think it's a shame.So, you are the sole judge of quality? "I don't like it, therefore it's bad" is pretty much what you've just said here.
Sure. I never said Paizo was innovative (in fact, I kind of said they weren't).Now, how do all these criticisms not equally apply to Paizo, if someone doesn't like Pathfinder? Does that mean that Paizo is not innovative?
What I see when I look at the pfsrd is roughly 1000% of the functionality I could ever need. It's a very thorough rules compendium with a lot else tacked on. I don't know anything about character or encounter builders; I'm sure there are some but I don't know what someone would use that type of stuff for anyway.Really? Every single 4e book, plus about 2-3000 pages of additional material (between Dungeon and Dragon magazines) in a single compendium, cross linked to a character builder. You see that in other games? For free? About the only thing that comes close is the 3e program whose name I've completely forgotten that is about as user friendly as a brick. The one that has lots and lots of the books, but, no character builder and no encounter builder.
Sure. I'm sure plenty of games had numbers that scaled upwards and standardized skill systems. It was innovative specifically from the POV of a vested 2e player. I certainly wouldn't begrudge someone who saw it differently from a different perspective.So, anyone looking at 3e and not liking it can say that 3e wasn't innovative?
Truly mind-boggling.See, when I looked at 4e, that's exactly the reaction I had for most of the mechanics. "What am I not doing things this way already".
How can we objectively judge the merits of any form of entertainment? As far as I'm concerned, this is an internet message board for roleplaying games, and we can either post personal opinions here, or nothing. The best we can do is compose persuasive arguments based on evidence, but they're still ultimately opinions.That's the problem with mistaking personal preference for actual criticism of something. Just because you like or don't like something has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not it's good.
@shidaku
What would you call innovative? I haven't seen much in the past few years from WotC that I would call innovative either. Whatever innovation is happening, IMO is with smaller companies.
It's clear that what you're looking for is a different kind of innovation. Something less iterative. Something surprising. I suppose there's nothing wrong with that.
When I refer to stigma, I don't mean 4E or the market split. I mean the wider perception of Dungeons and Dragons as a thing pimple-faced nerds play in their parents basement, or its demonic associations. D&D is a known, but disliked brand by society at large.
It may be easier to make Pathfinder into a household brand than it is to remove the D&D stigma.