D&D 5E cancelled 5e announcement at Gencon??? Anyone know anything about this?

[Jack99]

Since you quoted my post, I feel compelled to point out I was trying for sarcasm (just in case it didn't come across). I don't personally think that writing for one company precludes the possibility of liking another company's work.

I never said it precludes anyone from anything. This wasn't a general statement. I was just pointing out something that happens to be a fact. That Shemmy spends an awful lot of time trashing WotC's plane material, which I find a bit funny, when you consider he writes just that for the competition. And when I write funny, I mean sad.

I think he is a good writer, I even bought his book despite the fact that I don't play Pathfinder - It would just make him more classy if he didn't always had to crap all over WotC's latest version of the planes.

 

[Mark CMG]

If they confirm a 5e announcement was canceled that is basically doing a 5e announcement. I did hear rumors from some pretty reliable sources at the con though.

Here's a link to the original rumor, or the rumor of the rumor, on this site:

http://www.enworld.org/forum/4e-discussion/309804-scooping-morrus-site.html

Anyone have a link to anything better?

I was with him (Morrus) when he got one of the messages and I know who the source is. The person is not one I know that would spread unfounded rumors and they are in a position to know. I was a little surprised when I heard who Morrus was getting the information from.

It is still possible for a trustworthy person who is in good position to be incorrect. It may be a bit surprising, but it happens often enough.

I understand, I can't verify the rumor but I can at least verify the source for people that are doubting it.

Yikes, didn't realise there'd be a thread this long about it.

I myself don't know what to make of it; as I tweeted, I was unable to verify it, and it kinda came out of the blue. I certainly trust the person who told me to not be a spreader of random gossip; however, I don't know whether that person's information is correct or not, or whether something got twisted somewhere along the way. It all seems very unlikely to me, but I figured I'd pass it along anyway.

Time will tell, I guess. I wouldn't be confident one way or the other to place a bet.

Thanks for the level-headed assessment, Morrus. With Crothian's agreement that the source is reliable, I'm inclined to believe they were passing on what they believed to be good intel. Whether they may have misunderstood what was planned, is certainly another thing entirely, as you say. In any event, that discussion could even be misunderstood as there possibly being a 5E announcement seems to be interesting enough. It's hard to imagine a situation where a reliable source could be so far wrong as to come up with something whole cloth rather than simply getting some details wrong.

 

[I'm A Banana]

While I might consider believing you, given your history with Planescape, I am fairly certain you represent an extremely small part of the D&D community. You are certainly the first I have heard of that has had a campaign (arc) in PoV.

It's not about how big a chunk of the D&D community Shemmy personally represents, though.

The point was the fact that there was potential fun in the Plane of Vacuum and the Guardinals and Bytopia -- Shem's campaign realized that potential fun maybe more than most of ours, but that potential fun was always there, if we cared to do it.

And for the designers to take that potential fun, to laugh at it, and to basically call it boring on toast and discard it, is going to make the people who had fun (or who saw fun) in those elements annoyed.

It's not unlike some imaginary group of 5e designers saying about minis combat: "HAW HAW! Like playing with little plastic toys isn't something we all outgrew in the third grade! We're completely disregarding them, since they're basically the polar opposite of imagination and creativity, they lock you into a character design and worldview that inherently limits what you can do, and gives rise to all sorts of complexity that only makes hardcore math and wargame nerds happy."

People who like minis combat would be (rather justifiably) annoyed. Possibly, depending on their sensitivity, even a little hurt, or offended. Perhaps even enough to post to a message board how it feels like the designers are being rude to them, since they tend to actually like the thing they're calling basically an activity for unimaginative third-grade math nerds.

Everyone is entitled to like what they like. Minis combat might not be for everyone, and neither would Bytopia be for everyone, but to excise the potential fun that feature embodies just because you happen to not like it is pretty dang self-centered, and quite insulting to those who enjoy it.

I personally think the designers of any edition of D&D have a responsibility to, at the very least, not be dismissive of the way someone happens to play. Ideally, they should support as much as they can, but even if they can't support it, they should at least respect it, as a valid way to have fun, since, presumably, if the person wasn't having fun, they wouldn't be doing it.

Some of the 4e designers, by their derision, did not, in that instance, respect the way the others play. By FUBAR-ing the cosmology and mis-appropriating terms from D&D history, they already implied their disrespect less directly.

The Guardinals aren't for everybody. No one group of monsters or allies or creatures ever is for everybody. Some people dislike the Far Realm, others don't use any adversary that isn't Humanoid, some folks can't stand the "seventy-billion different intelligent humanoid races" motif, and psionics is anathema to others. WotC should probably supply alternatives -- including the alternative to just omit them. But they shouldn't say that it's wrong to enjoy them.

It's not wrong to enjoy the Runepriest. It's not my style, or the style of a lot of people, but it's not wrong to have fun with them. It would be rather rude of me to say that micro-managing powers is "the antithesis of fun." Clearly, some folks enjoy 'em. Horrah for them! Clearly, others don't. Horrah for them too! Here alternatives!

 

[Jack99]

It's not about how big a chunk of the D&D community Shemmy personally represents, though.

The point was the fact that there was potential fun in the Plane of Vacuum and the Guardinals and Bytopia -- Shem's campaign realized that potential fun maybe more than most of ours, but that potential fun was always there, if we cared to do it.

And for the designers to take that potential fun, to laugh at it, and to basically call it boring on toast and discard it, is going to make the people who had fun (or who saw fun) in those elements annoyed.

It's not unlike some imaginary group of 5e designers saying about minis combat: "HAW HAW! Like playing with little plastic toys isn't something we all outgrew in the third grade! We're completely disregarding them, since they're basically the polar opposite of imagination and creativity, they lock you into a character design and worldview that inherently limits what you can do, and gives rise to all sorts of complexity that only makes hardcore math and wargame nerds happy."

People who like minis combat would be (rather justifiably) annoyed. Possibly, depending on their sensitivity, even a little hurt, or offended. Perhaps even enough to post to a message board how it feels like the designers are being rude to them, since they tend to actually like the thing they're calling basically an activity for unimaginative third-grade math nerds.

Everyone is entitled to like what they like. Minis combat might not be for everyone, and neither would Bytopia be for everyone, but to excise the potential fun that feature embodies just because you happen to not like it is pretty dang self-centered, and quite insulting to those who enjoy it.

I personally think the designers of any edition of D&D have a responsibility to, at the very least, not be dismissive of the way someone happens to play. Ideally, they should support as much as they can, but even if they can't support it, they should at least respect it, as a valid way to have fun, since, presumably, if the person wasn't having fun, they wouldn't be doing it.

Some of the 4e designers, by their derision, did not, in that instance, respect the way the others play. By FUBAR-ing the cosmology and mis-appropriating terms from D&D history, they already implied their disrespect less directly.

The Guardinals aren't for everybody. No one group of monsters or allies or creatures ever is for everybody. Some people dislike the Far Realm, others don't use any adversary that isn't Humanoid, some folks can't stand the "seventy-billion different intelligent humanoid races" motif, and psionics is anathema to others. WotC should probably supply alternatives -- including the alternative to just omit them. But they shouldn't say that it's wrong to enjoy them.

It's not wrong to enjoy the Runepriest. It's not my style, or the style of a lot of people, but it's not wrong to have fun with them. It would be rather rude of me to say that micro-managing powers is "the antithesis of fun." Clearly, some folks enjoy 'em. Horrah for them! Clearly, others don't. Horrah for them too! Here alternatives!

I agree completely that everyone should be allowed to enjoy whatever it is that person enjoy, without being mocked. But I also think that people should be able to take if someone aims what is clearly a hyperbole at their odd taste. And while Shemmy might have a reason to be slightly miffed over the PoV comment, I am going to hazard a guess that 95% of those who reacted strongly as it had mentioned them by name, had in fact never even been to the PoV. Anyway, this is a 4 year old debate, and I see no reason to continue, as it is pretty clear that people are still offended by what I thought was a fairly harmless hyperbole.

Cheers

 

[Wicht]

I never played in the Plane of Vacuum and I still find it, these years later, rude, dismissive, and more than a little offputting. It showed a lack of respect and class. It was disrespectful to those who had worked hard on creating the prior material and it was disrespectful of those who actually liked the prior material. One does not have to be the target of an insult to be irritated by the poor manners of those offering the insult.

 

[JamesonCourage]

I agree completely that everyone should be allowed to enjoy whatever it is that person enjoy, without being mocked. But I also think that people should be able to take if someone aims what is clearly a hyperbole at their odd taste. And while Shemmy might have a reason to be slightly miffed over the PoV comment, I am going to hazard a guess that 95% of those who reacted strongly as it had mentioned them by name, had in fact never even been to the PoV. Anyway, this is a 4 year old debate, and I see no reason to continue, as it is pretty clear that people are still offended by what I thought was a fairly harmless hyperbole.

Cheers

I'll preface this by saying I don't play either 3.X or 4e.

I think the issue is that some people don't like the developers (that are understandably changing the game they're playing, with a new edition) to say what "badwrongfun" is. It's one thing for them to say, "this isn't our goal with this edition. Our goal is this." It's another to say, "yeah, who could have possibly enjoyed something like that? Seriously, nobody liked what we created."

I don't want the people that run the game I play to say what "badwrongfun" is. I understand when they say, "our goal doesn't support this choice" because the game can't support everything (even if it seems like D&D tries to, sometimes). Alienating a group of customers, even if it's small, is kind of a red flag to me, unless they really deserve it. A small segment of people that ended up liking some of the stuff released for the game? They don't really deserve ridicule, in my opinion.

Disagreement, I can understand. Shifting goals, I can understand. Making fun of something they liked? I don't like seeing that in a company. It makes me think they value their own preferences over that of their customers, and in a smaller hobby industry, that's disconcerting to me. It alienates me, even if they weren't making fun of me. Does that mean that they value their own preferences over that of their customers? No, it doesn't. But it sure can look or feel that way when they act childishly (the context of the quote in this thread makes me think they we're trying to act like the "cool kids" by bashing something they didn't particularly like).

That's just my thoughts on it. I'm not making a judgment on the actual character of the people in the discussion, but I am making a statement of how they come across to me, based on the quote and the context given. There are a lot of better ways to go about promoting your new product than alienating people who liked your old product.

Just my two cents. As always, play what you like

 

[Roland55]

Yikes, didn't realise there'd be a thread this long about it.

I myself don't know what to make of it; as I tweeted, I was unable to verify it, and it kinda came out of the blue. I certainly trust the person who told me to not be a spreader of random gossip; however, I don't know whether that person's information is correct or not, or whether something got twisted somewhere along the way. It all seems very unlikely to me, but I figured I'd pass it along anyway.

Time will tell, I guess. I wouldn't be confident one way or the other to place a bet.

Fear not, goodsir.

It has been MOST entertaining.

And yet ... somehow, so familiar ...

 

[I'm A Banana]

Anyway, this is a 4 year old debate, and I see no reason to continue, as it is pretty clear that people are still offended by what I thought was a fairly harmless hyperbole.

It probably would've been harmless from an anonymous poster on a D&D message board or even in behind closed doors at the designer meetings. But the people in control of D&D have, I think, a responsibility to acknowledge that what they don't use -- indeed, what a majority of players don't use -- someone, somewhere, probably does.

They should figure out why and how those people use what they do, and what they like about it, and what they don't.

Because, lets face it, D&D players in general do something that they regard as lots of fun that the majority of people don't. Sitting in a room for 4 hours on a sunny weekend afternoon with 4-5 other adults and pretending to be magical gumdrop elves is not any nation's national passtime, and it never will be. D&D designers understand pretty well what makes that fun. They should be able to understand what makes The Plane of Vacuum fun, too. And once they understand that, they can highlight that, expand it, make it better, draw it larger, and get more people interested in it.

They also shouldn't be astonished at people taking hyperbole seriously. If I were to say "4E IS A VIDEOGAME!," you could watch and see the offended people coming out of the woodwork, as if that phrase magically brought them into existence. And I'm just some dude on a semi-obscure D&D message board. I have no power, and no one should care what I think.

I don't exactly blame them for not wasting space detailing the quasi-elemental plane of vacuum, or the guardinals, or Bytopia. It's certainly not a priority. It is, however, important for you, if you are in charge of D&D, to know how and why D&D players have enjoyed these things in the past, so that you can continue to help them enjoy them going forward, and maybe even bring them to a bigger audience.

 

[catastrophic]

Umm, might want to check that again. The "3e cosmology" was three editions old at that point, with years and an entire campaign setting's worth of gradual evolution for what was used as the default 3e cosmology.

No no no, I didn'ty say that it wasn't old and repeated, I said, quite corectly, that there wasn't actually that much depth and history involved. Firstly, a lot of the material was just repeated. Second, a lot of the additional details didn't relate to real depth or history. Third, while there were books of some substance done under for instance, the planescape banner, you're again ignoring how much WOTC has put into the 4e planes. Entire multiple books worth. Were they all gems? Probably not. Was all the great wheel stuff? Hell no.

The two fiendish codex books in late 3e were gems, largely done by freelancers and much of that material isn't stuff that's in 4e.

No, again,I said editorial, not writing. And freelancers work on all sorts of books for wotc. The point is that the agenda of fleshing out the planes with for instance, more detailed histories started late in 3e, and went foward into 4e. Again, the fact that 4e's cosmos is different is not a bad thing, especially since it clearly built on the approach seen in the fiendish codex, as is commonplace in the trasition from late 3e to early 4e in all sorts of areas.

There was a plane of faerie introduced as an optional plane in the 3e MotP. I suspect that it developed into the 4e feywild in some capacity, based on what else from that particular book eventually got ported to 4e.

Again, only proving my point. The 4e planar material is written up based on an approach that began in 3e and progressed into 4e. And agin, the feywild has huge support, and is soon to get it's second full sized product. This compared to 3e. An optional plane, eh? Wow, how many sidebars did they spend on that one?

You may be thinking I'm seriously, seriously older than I actually am.

No, i'm just pre-empting a particular fallacy that gets thrown around.

But the thing with "moving planes" is hard to define versus something like the Great Wheel because those planes weren't truly static in the sense of being locked into place within some overarching 3d space wherein you could objectively define their positions.

Actially, they were truly static, in that they never changed. They were after all, infinite, and arbitary. Towns in the borderlands might slip, but there was no real state of flux or conflict in the outer or inner planes, least of all the blood war.

That "wheel" was a diagram to define the metaphysical relation between the alignment based planes. Those planes were infinite in size and you didn't have to walk literally across six planes to get to a seventh in some defined order, because there were portals that made any actual defined positional structure irrelevant many times. Granted you weren't likely to find as many portals to the Abyss in Elysium as you would to "adjacent" planes. It was only as tightly defined and fixed as you chose to play it.

The same is true for the elemental chaos and the astral sea, indeed, the same is true for any plane is the gm wishes it to be, and to be frank, 'inifinity' is not a quality that any game can seriously claim to encapsulate or make use of.

 

[Mournblade94]

"My tiefling hooker plays like a board game..."

Mine doesn't. I went for the full RPG experience.