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

[Umbran]

Okay, enough with rehashing old hurts.

Please, folks, drop the Edition War history, finger pointing at who was really the Big Bad Guys line of discussion. You are beating a dead horse, and thereby splattering everyone around you with putrid gore - it is messy and makes nothing better for anyone.

 

[malkav666]

And for those of us who believe that you have the skewed, revisionist picture?

For all the damage that D&D's image has suffered over the last couple years, the image of your average internet-going anti-4e poster has suffered far worse.

What does this even mean?

Why are images other than avatars even important on a text driven forum?

Yeah I see a lot of posters on ALL of the message boards I read taking pot shots at 4e. I secretly believe its because then that forum's resident 4e hard-ons will show up and bring out the angst. And TBH the "image" I have of your average devout 4e forum preacher is a pretty humorous one. Yes I laugh at them and read their commentary for its entertainment value. It always unfolds the same way. Every single time.

At first I was enjoying reading the same silly argument over and over again and watching my favorite forum comedians makes asses of themselves time and time again. But its been a few years on this topic and I pretty much have the rhetoric of both sides committed to memory, and as a result the punchlines just don't bring the laughs like they used to.I think it may be time to retire the edition war, it's just not as entertaining as it used to be. Can't you folks just agree to disagree and leave it at that?

I too was hoping there would be a 5e announcement at Gencon, and I will be waiting for an announcement in the future. 4e was not what it could have been and I am looking forward to a new take on the license regardless of the direction it takes in the axis of 3e to 4e. But that is just my own opinion. But the new miniatures game they announced will have to suffice. I really liked the skirmish DDM game.

love,

malkav

 

[technoextreme]

Of course I have at least some evidence that this just isn't the truth (and honestly I believe you are smart enough to know this.). There are plenty of threads here on Enworld where 4e fans put down Paizo, insinuate or outright call the company thieves or unoriginal hacks, and make claims that seem to hint that the players of 3.5 and PF aren't really having fun with their "broken" games, and so on. So please show me some evidence that it only goes one way and I'll be happy to change my opinion... can you say the same?

Copying an entire game system and republishing it is pretty unoriginal. Hell they even cribbed the weird underwear art that I was perplexed at from the 3.5E book. Of course calling them hacks is really stupid because its clear that they do quality work with their modules.

Also, I'm not entirely sure questioning as to how someone can have fun in a a game where power levels between classes can fluctuate wildly is antagonistic. Its actually a legitimate question and most of the time on this forum I got denial in response.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Edited after reading the page, and seeing Umbran's post. As always, play what you like

 

[Hussar]

/edit

whoop, answered before reading Umbran's post. My bad.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Copying an entire game system and republishing it is pretty unoriginal. Hell they even cribbed the weird underwear art that I was perplexed at from the 3.5E book. Of course calling them hacks is really stupid because its clear that they do quality work with their modules.

Also, I'm not entirely sure questioning as to how someone can have fun in a a game where power levels between classes can fluctuate wildly is antagonistic. Its actually a legitimate question and most of the time on this forum I got denial in response.

This icecream is a terrible vanilla!

Umm... it's strawberry.

It isn't anything like vanilla!

Umm, it says 'Strawberry' right there on the package....

Vanilla isn't pink!

Umm, maybe because strawberries are kind of, you know, red?

And this has chunks of strawberry in it! Look! A whole strawberry!

Ummm. there is a big picture of a strawberry on the carton....

***

Sometimes denial is because there are two different conversations going on, and one side or the other just is not listening.

The reason in this case is because a lot of folks didn't find 3.X wizards over powering, while some 4e players cannot wrap their minds around the fact that it is either subjective or circumstantial.

It comes down to style of play.

If the GM allows the so called '15 minute adventuring day' then it can be that the wizard is over powered.

If the wizard stretches his spells out over a longer time then the problem goes away.

I have only had the problem once, a short campaign at a game store. They kept stopping to rest after every encounter, then I let the scenario bite the PCs in the arse. After that, no wizard novas. (Having a timeline for the bad guys can make a world of difference.)

In other words, sometimes denial is correct, while sometimes the other side has evidence that it does happen - and they are not mutually exclusive - in each side's experience they are correct, leaving one side angry, and the other rolling its eyes about how thick the other side is. (You can swap either side for the angry and the eye rolling, it depends on who's patience is the longer of the two....)

If not for that one store game group I would not even believe in the 'fifteen minute adventuring day', because otherwise I would never have experienced it. I would note it down in the same category as the golf bag of weapons, roll my eyes, and move on. And a lot of folks haven't experienced it. It is more commonly bandied about than experienced.

Heck, I sometimes have to tell the younger players that they need to have their characters rest for the night, when the fighter is at half hit points and all the spells have been depleted.

The Auld Grump

 

[pemerton]

I take issue with your claim on two fronts. You call 4e "superior" on this front.

<snip>

You base this on the traditional cosmology being frontloaded with elements A - G (or whatever) to choose from, unlike 4E which allows whatever the player brings to the table, be it element B or element JJJ. But the break down there is that you seem to find the front loading of A - G to somehow be an impediment to using JJJ. That doesn't follow at all.

If element JJJ is not there, then it does. If the "volume" within the fiction (to use a metaphor) that is occupred by elements A-G crowds B and JJJ, then it does.

A fiction isn't just about piling elements in. It's also about the comparative significance or weight given to those elements.

I see having the conflict brought to the player as a real benefit.

<snip>

having elements of the plot and conflicts (physical, ethical, whatever) being imposed on the characters and then giving the character free reign to respond to and contend with this conflicts as they see fit has a much more rewarding nature. And, as a bonus, you can still have everything you claim 4E has, you just talk to the DM outside of the game.

<snip>

simply putting a narrative on top of something that wouldn't fit well in a novel doesn't make it a good story centric device.

Well, I did say that "The 4e cosmology is superior to the traditional D&D cosmology for playing a game in which player convictions and thematic concerns are the main drivers".

If you don't want to play such a game - if you want to play a game which is more like "living the novel", and in which conflict is "imposed on the characters" by the GM rather than enlivened by the players in the course of PC build and action resolution - then you won't find the 4e cosmology superior. Indeed, if your main aim in playing a game is exploring the nuances of a subtle, pre-existing fiction then in my view Shemeska is right that Planescape is superior, because it has more little nooks and crannies to explore and discover. Whereas the 4e cosmology is painted in broad brushstrokes using very familiar tropes: a primeval war between the gods and the giants/titans/primordials; an inquisitive god whose curiosity tainted the world with evil; a struggle between spirit/order and matter/chaos; etc, etc. If your goal is to explore these tropes, then I would suggest reading some mythology or some well-written literature. My point was that the 4e cosmology is superior for a game in which exploration is not the main point of play.

Also, your claim that you can get that sort of play by talking to the GM outside of the game is, in my view, mistaken. Getting the GM to agree to drive the fiction in a certain direction is not the same thing as driving the events in a certain direction oneself. One may prefer one, or the other, or perhaps neither - but they are very different ways of RPGing.

 

[Argyle King]

If element JJJ is not there, then it does. If the "volume" within the fiction (to use a metaphor) that is occupred by elements A-G crowds B and JJJ, then it does.

A fiction isn't just about piling elements in. It's also about the comparative significance or weight given to those elements.

Well, I did say that "The 4e cosmology is superior to the traditional D&D cosmology for playing a game in which player convictions and thematic concerns are the main drivers".

If you don't want to play such a game - if you want to play a game which is more like "living the novel", and in which conflict is "imposed on the characters" by the GM rather than enlivened by the players in the course of PC build and action resolution - then you won't find the 4e cosmology superior. Indeed, if your main aim in playing a game is exploring the nuances of a subtle, pre-existing fiction then in my view Shemeska is right that Planescape is superior, because it has more little nooks and crannies to explore and discover. Whereas the 4e cosmology is painted in broad brushstrokes using very familiar tropes: a primeval war between the gods and the giants/titans/primordials; an inquisitive god whose curiosity tainted the world with evil; a struggle between spirit/order and matter/chaos; etc, etc. If your goal is to explore these tropes, then I would suggest reading some mythology or some well-written literature. My point was that the 4e cosmology is superior for a game in which exploration is not the main point of play.

Also, your claim that you can get that sort of play by talking to the GM outside of the game is, in my view, mistaken. Getting the GM to agree to drive the fiction in a certain direction is not the same thing as driving the events in a certain direction oneself. One may prefer one, or the other, or perhaps neither - but they are very different ways of RPGing.

While I am someone who enjoys the new cosmology, I am not sure if I have faith in the structural integrity of that statement.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Heh, like any cosmology, it is a matter of Faith.

I am kind of neutral in regards to the way planes are handled, to be honest.

While I do believe that that podcast is a possible example of a concerted effort to play down previous editions it a specific issue that I have no stake in - I never used it in my own settings. Every religion has its own cosmology, multiple in any given world. I avoided Planescape like the plague.

I consider 4e's cosmology to be no better and no worse than that of previous editions.

It was the talking down of previous editions that bothered me, not the topic. Quite frankly I found the attitude to be the antithesis of good marketing.

The Auld Grump

 

[pemerton]

While I am someone who enjoys the new cosmology, I am not sure if I have faith in the structural integrity of that statement.

Can you elaborate? I think the grammar is fine. Are you worried about the coherence of an RPG in which exploration is not the main goal of play?