Search results

I've updated the original post with an extra comment about my phrasing and an apology to Dave, if he comes back to read it.

It's entirely possible I'm wrong and I just haven't been convinced yet. Those who have hinted at "any publicity is good publicity, since it keep people talking about D&D Next" may be onto something.

Would you prefer I said I think it's PR misstep? A PR unforced error? Is there any way I can express an opinion that I disagree with WotC's strategies without making this a huge deal?

I'm not sure I'm doing a good job at stating my opinion, since a lot of people seem to be upset by it.

BTW, my original post that started this thread was meant to help clear up an issue and point out that assumptions about the rules based on NDA-cloaked play reports are likely to be bad assumptions. Did I really fail to convey that? I gave both Dave's original comment and followed it up by...

Okay, then we're just disagreeing about WotC's strategy, and I'm okay with not agreeing.

That's not entirely what it's based on, but I do think that when included with things like super-vague-to-the-point-of-pointlessness official polls, there's an argument to be made that WotC isn't doing itself favors and could handle things better. Clearly, this is an issue of opinion and not...

What percentage of that do you think is a system problem, what part do you think is a character sheet problem, and what percentage is just the players you played with? I ask the latter because I've been in some groups that love to flavor and/or reflavor 4e powers, and other groups that seem to...

I suppose, but it doesn't seem as if those who are pleased with long recovery times are any more accurate than those who were displeased. I mean, neither side knows anything about the rules now, or rather, near as we can tell, there isn't anything rules-wise that means charging into a bunch of...

I'm okay with being disagreed with.

Then why did you answer the question of "who is blaming the bloggers for this?" by saying I was? I didn't contribute to the imbroglio on this topic; I'm posting to warn people AGAINST reading too much into the situation. You seem to be attacking me for something I quite clearly didn't do.

The approach they've taken with allowing certain high-profile bloggers, journalists, and visitors to a single con to playtest something and then talk about it "under NDA" is part of the process that I think is flawed. It leads, for example, for gamers hungry for information about D&D Next to...

I think you need to rewrite what I wrote. I will spell it out even more clearly, in simple words, though: The "PR nightmare" refers to the way that WotC has chosen, at this early stage in the game, to address giving out information about D&D Next. Not to anything that Dave did wrong, although...

It's kind of unclear from your reply -- have you read the 4e MV (and the MV: Nentir Vale) being discussed?

The "PR nightmare" is not anything to do with Dave's actions at the game table or at the blog. It's to do with the way that WotC is handling release of information on 5e.

Who said this?

GNS is not meant to be a method of dividing up players into categories. At its best, it can describe certain elements of game play that occur during roleplaying games. But it's not about players' preferences at all.

Is this thread an ad for your forthcoming game or something? In any case, I think you need to reconsider your proposed system, as it doesn't seem to actually solve the real problems. Unless you want adventurers dying of old age in their early 20s, for some reason. (What a strange game world...

How exactly do you explain this? That doesn't imply anything like the Fighter/Slayer split or the idea that the DM will choose to allow a mix-and-match game. It says right there that Monte's vision is the choice of character complexity and scope -- e.g., what skill systems are used -- is up to...

Actually, if you go back to his original comment on this, he's saying that: (a) 3e had OGL. (b) 4e didn't have OGL. (c) 3e succeeded where 4e didn't, and (d) that was because of OGL. That's just not supportable.