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

[Mournblade94]

On the "great wheel" - it's been different things in different editions (and even within the same edition - it changed between the AD&D PHB and the AD&D Deities and Demigods).

I tend to agree with this comment about the AD&D PHB's version of it (which occurs in a 4/1 rpg.net review of that book):

The final section of the book includes an alignment graph (without systematic suggestions for use) and the planes of existence, including the rather evocative assignment of Earthly polytheistic pantheons within the AD&D alignment system.
​

My personal view is that some of that "evocativeness" was lost when DDG split up the pantheons by alignment in a way that did not seem true to the original flavour of Appendix IV. And this is really the beginning of the Planescape approach.

Agreed. I would XP you if I could!

 

[Mournblade94]

The history of the 4e planes is well established, and is defined by sweeping events of the past like the dawn war and the placing of the seed of evil. In contrast, there isn't that much history to 3e cosmology, and a lot of it was established pretty late in the edition's lifespan, under the same editorial approach that created 4e.

There is no way to say empirically 4e cosmos is better or worse, but there is plenty more history for it than has been given for 4e. In fact it had a whole campaign's worth of history. I like the great wheel more. I don't care for 4e's cosmology. In fact I like the great wheel better than Paizo's cosmology. I play in the cosmology established in my campaign. It is BETTER for MY campaign. Perhaps 4e is better for yours.

You're particularly neglecting the feywild- you do know there wasn't actually even a fairie realm in the 3e cosmology, right? I mean, for 4e, they added an entire huge realm based around the idea.

What exactly are you defending here? Does the feywild added from various mythologies suddenly make 4e better? No it makes it different.

I made the feywild on my own and simply called it the "land of fey". 4e really did not accomplish much with this in my opinion.

Not to mention, you're also doing a disservice to my campaign, wich just fyi, probably blows yours out of the water when it comes to depth and world detail. Yeah, I went there.

WOW! You are supercool!!!!!! You have great campaign settings! The fact 'you went there' proves it!!!!!!

I have ten players in two games, I've been running this campaign since 4e began, and if somebody described the campaign as 'kill evil things and no need for boring depth' we'd probably laugh in their face. And no, I don't care if you've been running your game since gary gygax was a tween or whatever.

No body said you run bad campaigns. Anyway you proved you run great campaigns because you 'went there.'

 

[catastrophic]

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.

Sure, if they're looking for an excuse. But frankly, that's what's going on. People backlashed against 4e because they were angry about change. And then they found excuses and rationalisations for that anger.

It's not unlike some imaginary group of 5e designers saying about minis combat:

Or indeed, large numbers of very real 4e critics making absurd, hyper critical, and often outright wrong statemenets about 4e.

And the fact is, we've vastly more and worse 4e bashing than this single, hugely exagerated incident of the dreaded, terrible, outrageous bytopia bashing.

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.

Yeah but again, this actually happens constantly when people bash 4e (see shesheka's trash-talking about play styles earlier), and on the other hand, the criticisms the 4e devs made about 3e were made in fun, obviously not intented to be hurtful, and reacted to by people who were clearly over-reacting with blinding fury to the fact that the newest edition of D&D wasn't to their liking.

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.

Again, why do I get the feeling you'll ignore the actual, real, overwhelmingly greater and more genuine case of this sort of stuff happening, ie the hostility to 4e? I mean, you have, overtly, by even buying into this idea. These outrages over planar trivia and tone of voice are just an excuse people use to justify their own anger and agression on this issue.

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.

One might hope that people would be able to, for instance, respect people for having negative but well argued opinions about minor traits of a game they like, and indeed, not react with one of the internet's biggest group temper-tantrums complete with absurdly personal vendettas based on minor comments, when a group of developers decide to design something they don't like.

I mean, do any of you in your efforts to be outraged about the mean terrible 4e devs and their meanness towards the plane of vaccum ever consider that maybe, just maybe, you're the ones being agressive, and overly critical?

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.

Whatever you can claim about the 4e devs in these criticisms of 3e clearly loom far larger in the backlash against 4e.

And no, you don't get to blame the devs for that backlash- nothing anybody did is actually deserving of the venom which the 4e hate brigade has pushed into the comunity, least of all the wotc devs who dared to slaughter some sacred cows. What you're doing here is pepetuating a scapegoat.

WotC should probably supply alternatives -- including the alternative to just omit them. But they shouldn't say that it's wrong to enjoy them.

So in other words, all criticism is 'saying it's wrong to enjoy them'- you're deliberatly misquoting them there- and doing that is always bad. Do you understand the implications of what you're saying?

I would really love to see the product of this 'never say anything the most over-sensitive people on the internet will be offended by' style of game design. I'm sure a game based on that princible would win a whole slew of ennies. Assuming pathfinder wasn't competing that year.

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.

You're aiding in misrepresenting the context. Comments like this have been hugely blown out of proportion, against the backdrop of a vicious backlash against 4e that has been extremly personal, critical, intolerant, and makes common use of scapegoats like this to justify itself.

There is no way to say 4e cosmos is better or worse, but there is plenty more history for it than has been given for 4e. In fact it had a whole campaign's worth of history.

No, it doesn't. See, the word history actually means something, and while there is a fair bit of history about sigil in planescape, there is not really that much at all about the great wheel, prior to the two fiendish codex books.

What exactly are you defending here? Does the feywild added from various mythologies suddenly make 4e better? No it makes it different.
I made the feywild on my own and simply called it the "land of fey". 4e really did not accomplish much with this in my opinion.

Did you evne read the discussion going on, or did you just jump in and start swinging? I was replying to the claim that 4e had no time for non-combat events in the land of fairie, when in reality, it's the first edition to have proper support for such a setting.

WOW! You are supercool!!!!!! You have great campaign settings! The fact 'you went there' proves it!!!!!!

Again, you're ignoring the discussion despite trying to enter it. Shemsheka hurled a veiled insult at my preferred playstyle, so I replied by putting things into proper context.

No body said you run bad campaigns.

Actually, they did clearly imply that 4e was s shallow, combat oriented game, and that i'd 'found a playstyle' within that. This was a staggering oversight on their part, so I opted to clarify.

Anyway you proved you run great campaigns because you 'went there.'

No, I proved I run great campaigns because I do. I said 'i went there' because I actually called the ridiculous idea that 4e is a shallow game that doesn't allow for deep settings, histories, campgins, or play styles.

 

[Nagol]

<snip>

What exactly are you defending here? Does the feywild added from various mythologies suddenly make 4e better? No it makes it different.

I made the feywild on my own and simply called it the "land of fey". 4e really did not accomplish much with this in my opinion.

<snip>

For the Realms of Faerie, I always use an 'Alternate Prime Material Plane' (actually, several) -- some of the 'endless parallel worlds' mentioned in the DMG.

 

[Mournblade94]

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.

What is funny is that people that did not care in the first place are rightfully so not offended by the dismissiveness. Then because they are incapable of placing themselves in someone else's position cannot fathom why 'statement X' would annoy or offend.

It is like when people are offended at Ethnic jokes. When they are the ethnicity of topic they might find offense, when those of other backgrounds can't fathom why a particular sentiment could be offensive.

 

[catastrophic]

Wow, you seriously just did that?

 

[Dice4Hire]

I think its time to put a fork in the planes discussion and fork it.

 

[Mournblade94]

No, it doesn't. See, the word history actually means something, and while there is a fair bit of history about sigil in planescape, there is not really that much at all about the great wheel, prior to the two fiendish codex books.

There is great history and source material in the 1st edition of Manual of the Planes to start. You can work up from there.

Did you evne read the discussion going on, or did you just jump in and start swinging? I was replying to the claim that 4e had no time for non-combat events in the land of fairie, when in reality, it's the first edition to have proper support for such a setting.
Again, you're ignoring the discussion despite trying to enter it. Shemsheka hurled a veiled insult at my preferred playstyle, so I replied by putting things into proper context.

Actually, they did clearly imply that 4e was s shallow, combat oriented game, and that i'd 'found a playstyle' within that. This was a staggering oversight on their part, so I opted to clarify.

No, I proved I run great campaigns because I do. I said 'i went there' because I actually called the ridiculous idea that 4e is a shallow game that doesn't allow for deep settings, histories, campgins, or play styles.

I did not see any sort of veiled insult in Smemeska's original post. Or could that be because I do not play 4e, and since I do not I would not recognize the insult? Perhaps it was too subtle for me to get?

Perhaps you made a hyberbolic response when no offense was intended?

The same way that older edition fans, found offense to WOTC developers telling them there is no fun in the plane of vacuum.

I understand your perspective now and I apologize. I can see WHY you would be offended at those remarks. Perhaps now you can see why older edition fans were offended at WOTC developers remarks.

 

[JamesonCourage]

You're aiding in misrepresenting the context. Comments like this have been hugely blown out of proportion, against the backdrop of a vicious backlash against 4e that has been extremly personal, critical, intolerant, and makes common use of scapegoats like this to justify itself.

No offense, but I'm really not going to discuss this with you, because you seem more like you wish to refute rather than discuss. You did not address my post, and trying to refute it won't work. That's not how perception works. That's not how feelings work. You applying your perceptions of this being purely "vicious backlash against 4e" is understandable, but from the content of your quotes, I find your responses too hostile for me to have a productive conversation with on this topic.

As always, play what you like

 

[Then]

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.

Well with this many 'trustworthy people' who seems to know and tell everyone about it. Kinda makes them not so trustworthy doesn't it? I always find that funny when something like this happens. You get information that is under NDA or what not and someone talks and you call them a 'trustworthy source'.

Wonder if Rodney Thompson is the 'source' you know the only guy Morrus talked to from WotC at Gencon. Perhaps it was someone from WotC who didn't go to Gencon and was all huffy about not being able to go, so they gave crucial sensitive info to Morrus.