Are people still mad about . . .

[Dannager]

I also really didn't like the tone of SOME of the designers when talking about 3.5. Comparisons to the older game to sell your new one. But I think that if you can't tell me what you like about something without bashing something else then you've got an issue.

Amusingly, this is one of my biggest criticisms with 4e detractors; more often than not, they are unable to justify their appreciation of whatever their current game is without explaining why they just can't stand another game (in this case, 4e). It makes it appear as though they like their game of choice merely because it's not Game X, and the game they like doesn't have any significant redeeming qualities of its own to stand upon.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

To you.

That doesn't mean D&D isn't designed in a certain direction. You can employ the system (however awkwardly) to accomplish whatever you may like, including traipsing off through fairy rings, but that doesn't mean the game doesn't have a core and a focus.

If you find interacting with little people more interesting than exploring dungeons and slaying monsters, that's cool. Use D&D or don't use D&D; it really doesn't matter. You'll enjoy your game, and we'll enjoy ours. Finding insult in the statement of a designer who was simply pointing out what the game is designed to best accomplish is just silly, though.

To him, to me, and to a large number of other players - it is an excellent example of the BadWrongFun that WotC has been accused of passing around during their lead up to 4e.

Telling me that your brand new game is not going to be useful for the types of game I want to run is not the best way to get me to spend time and money on your brand new game.

4e has a focus, and it is a focus that does not interest me - so how does that make the game in any way more desirable to me? Show me how the new game does better for running the games that I want to run, don't tell me that the games I want to run are not what the game is about. The older edition does just fine for running what I want, so why should I change?

The sad thing is that most of the quotes that annoy me came from game designers, not the folks who put the polish on advertising....

The Auld Grump

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Hmmm...never had that problem, Dannager. I could tell you everything I like about each version of D&D- 4Ed included- without griping about other versions.

And I can do that about any other RPG I like, too.

 

[ShinHakkaider]

Hmmm...never had that problem, Dannager. I could tell you everything I like about each version of D&D- 4Ed included- without griping about other versions.

And I can do that about any other RPG I like, too.

Again, exactly.

It's not like I dont play and like other games (M&M, HERO System, Spycraft, Star Wars Saga to name a few), it's just that D&D has been the one through line in my entire Role Playing career.

Like I said before 4E was the first time where I looked at a D&D ruleset and said "this is not for me". The Powers are a big part of that. The build up to 4E and the marketing was another part of it. Even now I still pull the MM off of the shelf and flip through it (it's my favorite book of the three main core rule books) it gives me ideas on different ways to run monsters in my PF games.

I love the way the DM's guide is laid out and it's a solid DM's guide for any edition. I like the idea of using XP as an encounter budget (which Pathfinder now uses and Trailblazer).

But like I said, when I actually ran it the combats felt like more like a pure mini's game and while I like mini's games and have no problem with them (youre talking to someone who has 6 WH40K armies, mini's from Warmachine and Void) it didnt feel right to me as a D&D game.

I havent gotten rid of the 4E Gift set yet, but I really dont see myself playing 4E.

 

[ShinHakkaider]

Thanks for posting that. It was one of the examples I was thinking of when I originally posted about the bad marketing scheme WotC had rolled out. Its one thing to compare your new product to your old, its quite another to actually denigrate your previous product in order to sell the new.

And that's just one example of the snark that ticked some of us off.

Yeah instead of touting the proud tradition of the awesomeness of each previous edition they basically chose to take pot shots at them, especially 3rd ED.

That was a deliberate choice.

 

[gamerprinter]

If you find interacting with little people more interesting than exploring dungeons and slaying monsters, that's cool.

Actually in my games, we do both. You should check out the awesome dungeons in the land of Fey, even dungeons inhabited by Fey, and only sometimes does that lead to combat - but you can't get there without traipsing through the faerie ring!

 

[Theo R Cwithin]

That doesn't mean D&D isn't designed in a certain direction. You can employ the system (however awkwardly) to accomplish whatever you may like, including traipsing off through fairy rings, but that doesn't mean the game doesn't have a core and a focus.

That is certainly true, but the real issue here is what the devs were saying about this fact, and how they were saying it. Again:

"D&D is a game about slaying horrible monsters, not a game about traipsing off through fairy rings and interacting with the little people." James Wyatt, Races and Classes

This is very clearly stating that D&D is something very specific. And that something specific is very much not what many, many players view it as. Moreover this is not something new: for 30 years before 4e came out people had been playing D&D in various different ways for various different reasons. But the approach taken by developers to hype the system very specifically singles out one of those ways as the "correct" way. So why shouldn't the "incorrect" players have felt insulted?

I really don't think it was intentional, of course. As someone in another thread not long ago suggested, this was probably just a really awkward attempt at being hip and trying to appeal to a target demographic. It's just unfortunate that this also really vexed another demographic.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

"D&D is a game about slaying horrible monsters, not a game about traipsing off through fairy rings and interacting with the little people." James Wyatt, Races and Classes

This is very clearly stating that D&D is something very specific. And that something specific is very much not what many, many players view it as. Moreover this is not something new: for 30 years before 4e came out people had been playing D&D in various different ways for various different reasons. But the approach taken by developers to hype the system very specifically singles out one of those ways as the "correct" way. So why shouldn't the "incorrect" players have felt insulted?

Agreed...and thank you for reposting one of the other quotes that bugged me.

I really don't think it was intentional, of course. As someone in another thread not long ago suggested, this was probably just a really awkward attempt at being hip and trying to appeal to a target demographic. It's just unfortunate that this also really vexed another demographic.

Again agreed, and while I'm probably not the only one nor the one you're thinking about, I definitely suggested this possibility.

 

[howandwhy99]

I'm still mad about "Mad About You".

Paul Reiser was a comic genius.

 

[Relique du Madde]

I'm mad that My Little Pony RPG was a April Fool's joke. I want to play Rainbow Dash .