Are people still mad about . . .

[Dannyalcatraz]

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

You can do that in HERO or M&M...

It might be a Gritty Little Pony in GURPS, though.

 

[Mikaze]

"I'm not mad. I'm just disappointed."

 

[Windjammer]

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.

I agree and predict that the marketing for 5E will be pitched differently. Frankly, nothing short of a Dragonborn trailer "Grrr! I'm a monster now!" will do. Preferably the dragonborn gets roasted in the video by a fairy, but I guess that's hoping for too much.

 

[MoxieFu]

I still think that 3E and 4E could have come from 2E but I guess I am hard pressed to argue that you would have to tell someone that 4E is DND if it weren't on the cover as it is very different. I don't think that's bad, though. ymmv

edg

And this is why some people said that 4e is D&D for people who hate D&D.

Progression from one version of the game to the next was always fine with me. With 4e it went from progression to divergence.

 

[Keefe the Thief]

And this is why some people said that 4e is D&D for people who hate D&D.

People who hate 4e say that 4e is for people who hate D&D, and that it isn´t D&D. It is like a rollercoaster of hate, or like that Star Trek:TnG-episode where they are trapped in a temporal loop. Raise shields, Data!

Anyway, i´m still disappointed that i wasn´t disappointed by anything. I really felt left out.

 

[megamania]

There are several things I am still disappointed over but "mad"? Most of these have profit based reasons that after sitting back from it I can see and understand BUT.......


1) I still miss Dragon magazine

2) I still even miss Dungeon magazine

3) I dislike the WoW and/or Computer game feel of how to do DnD being THE way now

4) I miss not getting new Eberron stuff. They put out two 4e books then ignore it. I can't even take concepts / ideas to place into 3e this way.

5) Constant restructuring of miniatures.

 

[Jack99]

4) I miss not getting new Eberron stuff. They put out two 4e books then ignore it. I can't even take concepts / ideas to place into 3e this way.

As noted in another thread just the other day, there has in fact been a lot of Eberron articles (about one per month) in the magazines. Of course, if you do not buy those, you are SOL.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Speaking personally, it's very real.

There are games that I'd seek to play in if the DM wasn't set on 4E. (I have played 4E, and I suppose I'd play it again if it were put in front of my face, but it just doesn't interest me enough to go out of my way for it.)

And there are players that would have played in my games if I were running 4E (instead of 3.5 and Pathfinder, and now M&M). My housemate liked 4E enough that she played in our brief experiment with 4E, but wouldn't play in our 3.5/PF games. (Amusingly, she -- with no exposure to such opinions online or otherwise -- said that she liked how much 4E was like MMORPGs.)

I think you left out the part that is really amusing, or at least interesting.

People say that they worry everyone will wander off to play MMORPGs. Yet, when MMORPG players are faced with D&D 4, they want to play it. It. D&D 4. Not World of Warcraft. Not Lord of the Rings Online. They want to play a table top roleplaying game. They don't rather sit behind a monitor. They prefer rolling dice rather than pushing their mouse.

It seems there is still something left in RPGs and D&D specifically if that can happen.

I personally attribute this to the fact that having a human being instead of a computer controlling the game environment gives a lot of possibilities and opportunities computer games simply lack. Actually interacting with "real" beings instead of voices from your speakers might be another (and related) component.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I'm glad someone besides me brought that one up. People will come out of the woodwork and say that the quote is taken out of context. I read the blurb in Races & Classes, and it's just as insulting when you read the lead-in. Traipsing off through fairy rings and interacting with the little people is infinitely more interesting and appealing that playing smack-bottom with some horrible monster.

I admit that I play D&D a bit loosey-goosey; I'm in it for the fun, not nit-picking with stats. My games are typically combat-light, because of it. With characters and monsters being defined by their role in combat, 4e left a sour taste in my mouth.

Oh, and I'm a leap-grognard; 1e to 3e to 5e (though I started with Basic, to be fair)

I think in designer speak this is like saying:
"Mutants & Masterminds is ultimiately a game about playing superheroes fighting against supervillains, not about traipsing off through fairy rings and interacting with little people."

You can do the latter with M&M. You can do it with D&D 4. You can do it with Shadowrun. But that's not what these games are designed for.

These guys are game designers. They speak about the design of their game. What it focuses on. What they were looking out for. What's important for the development of the game mechanics.

It isn't a value statement that people using it for something else are doing it wrong.

I think the typical reason for feeling insulted is not sharing the same context as the game designers.

 

[JeffB]

I don't get mad about silly games of make believe. I think most gamers take games way too seriously- but thats a topic for another thread.

Overall I'm happy with 4E the game, and how it has been handled by WOTC - In fact happiest I've been since 1998 or so with them. I tuned out around 2002.

I would agree I miss print magazines, and OOP PDFs, but I'm not mad about it.