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

[vagabundo]

In the latest Legends and Lore article Mearls mentions that he was having a chat with Monte about skills. Now, I know a lot of the designers hang around a lot and chat about games, but it seemed odd to me to mention it in the article. Maybe he is dropping hints.

I wonder if they have taken on freelancers in secret and maybe they are reaching out to get some stuff from a wider audience. Would be nice if it were so...

 

[Argyle King]

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?

The grammar is perfectly fine. As for exploration not being the main goal of play - I have no feelings one way or the other on that.

I simply do not understand the statement that 4E's cosmology is superior based upon the reasons given. While I myself do feel there are styles of play that the mechanical structure of 4E and the ideals upon which the 4E is built built clash with, I have no reason to believe the new cosmology is more poorly suited to exploration than 3rd Edition's Great Wheel.

 

[Imaro]

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.

Pemerton, we've done this dance before so I'll try to make it brief. I find it strange when you state an absolute like this. IMO, you are just more familiar, and enjoy, the tropes in 4e (based more on classical myths) than you are with the tropes that comprise Planescape (based more on Sword and Sorcery and pulp/weird fiction). Now if you want to see the types of tropes Planescape allows one to explore please read some Michael Moorcock, Fritz Lieber, even some Lovecraft and China Mieville.

I'm sorry but I find nothing in Planescape, or it's cosmology, that hinders playing a game in which player convictions and thematic concerns are the main drivers. Just by choosing or not choosing a faction PC's make thematic choices and place their convictions... In fact it's factions, and especially it's uncertain view of the truth of the multiverse, alignment, denizens, makeup and limits... seems to foster exactly the type of play you are speaking of. I'm curious have you ever played a Planescape game? What exactly, and I'm talking about specifics now, created a barrier to player convictions and thematic concerns driving the game forward. You state an absolute but are quite vague in your reasons for why Planescape isn't just as good at this type of play as 4e's cosmology. And just to be clear, I am not asking you to rehash what you like about 4e's cosmology but instead what actually hinders said playstyle with Planescape.

 

[Voadam]

I will go further than this. 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, because it contains many elements which are heavily frontloaded with thematically rich conflict, and puts them on display for the players to choose from in building their PCs (via comments in the PHB, sidebars in the Power books, little bits and pieces in the powers' flavour texts, etc).

I like the 4e cosmology a lot but I'm really not getting your point.

Can you give an example of what you are talking about?

Is it that in 4e tiefling and warlock are core and so can have devil theme player options jumping out at you instead of simply being options from supplements like the MM/Races of Faerun/Complete Arcane? That devil themes are superior to druid ones to have in the core so 4e is superior to 3e?

I can think of many examples where 3e/d20 player options are diverse and customizable so player choices can fit well with PC chosen cosmology based thematics (a half-orc ranger chooses favored enemy elf to reflect Gruumsh-Correlon hatred for example).

 

[technoextreme]

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.

Saying that you have to play the game in a specific way in order to avoid problems with a system is not a system that is working correctly. Also, stop using the argument that its subjective. You basically are invoking one of the more common logical fallacies.

 

[Umbran]

Saying that you have to play the game in a specific way in order to avoid problems with a system is not a system that is working correctly.

Unless you think that *every* system must support *every* playstyle (and thus be all things to all people), this is simply not true. It is like saying a wrench isn't working correctly if it hammers nails poorly.

Every system has ways in which it works well, and ways it works not-well.

 

[Mournblade94]

Thanks Umbran

 

[Mournblade94]

Its been how many years now and people are still offended over this? This stuff was said back in 2007-2008 and people are still up in arms over minutae? I think that speaks louder than anything that was said by WotC in the lead up to 4E, and people still being upset in 2011 says more about them than it does about 4E's developers. You can put whatever face on it that you want(in this case making fun of crappy planes), but I think we can all see there are deeper issues.

Pray tell what are those deeper issues?

Could it be that a group of developers that some people used to trust made a game they USED to like, and transformed it into a game they don't want to play? Is that really unwarranted?

It borders on hillarious that those that are not impacted by a change can say "no big deal!" "Just deal with it!" You still have your books! etc.

Bottom line is it is great they catered to your play style. They did however in several instances say they were designing away from the older play styles. They in fact DID design away from older play styles.

Simply by not including areas for Fluff because there is no so called playability is designing away from play styles. Saying that a plane of vacuum needs to be removed, because it is just fluff is designing away from a paly style.

There are no "issues" underlying anything as if someones inner child was injured. The only issue is that ONE gaming company proved they are not needed for a formerly loyal group of fans.

 

[Mournblade94]

Frankly, I don't recall any such mentality in any real sense. I think it's an artifact of 4e bashing, not any genuine set of behaviour.

They explained their reasons for making the changes they did, in a genuine and well intentioned effort to comunicate with the comunity, and pepple retconned it into some sort of mean jerkfest, to justify their own poor behaviour.

Once again...

when criticism is aimed at something you don't like, it is not automatic jerk behaviour.

 

[Mournblade94]

I like to look at the big picture. While individual people might be more or less civil in complaining about 4E, the big picture is that instead of sticking with and being happy with earlier editions or Pathfinder, disenfranchised fans of earlier D&D editions elected to set D&D on fire and poison the atmosphere for the rest of us. That might not have been an individual person's intention but ended up the grand scheme of things.

This is a question relayed in all honesty...

How is the atmosphere of a 4e player "poisoned"? I play a lot of games in a lot of places. I have played Pathfinder games Next to (you will never beleive this...) a table where the players are playing 4e. Neither group ribs the other, or disrupts the others game, except for an occasional improv acting session that is overly loud.

The only criticism comes when Player from group A, asks Player from Group B "Why don't you play our game this week," and either person will relay why they do not want to without VITRIOL.

Grognards are not destroying the fabric of the 4e gamingverse. I go to game cons, and I find individuals from any camp acting like arses. But there is not this hostile us vs. them mentality that people would have you beleive. I play PATHFINDER with 4e players. I consider them friends! Imagine that!

I am allowed to criticise WOTC for creating 4e in an image I do not like. There is nothing wrong with criticising them again, and again, and again. MAYBE (though doubtfully) they will change it into something I like again. That is the purpose of complaint and criticism. I am very happy the 4e they made caters to YOUR playstyle. That will not stop me from complaining about it or criticising 4e in threads like these.

What I will not do is go to YOUR gaming table and tell you how much WOTC screwed the pooch, or go to your gaming store or gaming room and point out the flaws in 4e. This just does not happen.

The ONLY hostility I ever encounter in reagards to 4e is ONLINE. It seems in person I can have conversations with players of other games without anyone getting offended.

I fail to see how this group of other than 4e players has poisoned the gaming atmosphere.

Perhaps that perception is as unreasonable, as a gamer like myself thinking the developers were calling MY playstyle wrong...