History repeats itself

[Piratecat]

Simulmod!

 

[Betote]

They have to focus on what's different. Why would you buy the same product twice? They've learned from the mistake of 3.0->3.5, which caused a lot of bad feeling for being not enough change to warrant a new edition.

I'd prefer if they focused on what's unique, rather than on what's different.

And when they try to sell me on a 3.X "flaw" which I happen to see as a merit (monster treatment, characters running out of resources, some classes or races mere existence), well, they drive me a little further from the 4E cheering crowd.

I'm getting a quite different impression, btw. 4e will be very, very close to late 3e, especially if you used ToB, Complete Arcane/Mage and MM 4/5*. It will have much the same core system as 3e. Even small stuff like swift actions and 5 foot steps (renamed shifts) are still in. It's just the numbers going into that system have been rejigged.

I'd be very happy if that was the case. I'm very fond of 3.X general working, and I'd like to see a game which was about 80% 3.X and 20% new content. Of course, if it's 100% new content and it proves to be better content than my 3.x books, I'll happily use it instead of them.

 

[Lord Fyre]

I call bull. Give us a direct quote that directly comes from a designer/developer saying "Previous editions suck." as opposed to the real things they've been saying "Previous editions have had problems."

Okay, but going from a different approach. I do get the feeling that WoTC's Marketing team is not doing enough to build enthusiasm in the existing player base.

This is likely to result is a slower start for 4th Edition, until "word of mouth" can overcome many existing player's inititial reluctance.

My feeling is that a more open and substantive communication with the fanbase during the build up would reduce that reluctance (much as "world of mouth" eventually will), and would give 4th Edition a faster initial start up.

 

[The Ubbergeek]

Honestly, it's near a 1 on PR check.

sigh...

 

[Lizard]

So do you use false standards frequently, or just on special occasions like this one? Nobody claimed that something so stupid as a direct quote of that nature exists.

But if you can't see where the repeated and very emphatic statements that "previous editions had problems" has made their point really clear, then I'd suggest that your reading comprehension has "had problems".

There are some people who, if WOTC said that, in 4e, for their characters to go up in level, the players would need to sacrifice a live kitten to Satan, would be telling us that this is a wonderful way that Wizards is helping to cut down on unwanted strays and would have a standing order at the pound for June.

Such people are, pretty much, not worth arguing with.

Judging who such people are is left as an exercise for the reader.

 

[The Little Raven]

I used the verb "mock" consciounsly. It's quite different to saying "We're trying to fix the grapple rules" than filming the "-I grapple. -Oh, why did you have to do that?" sketch.

That's funny, because you didn't use the word mock. At all. In fact, the word "mock" doesn't show up in this thread until your latest post. You said that "'Constantly pointing out that all prior editions of D&D suck' and 'Constantly saying all prior D&D sucks' are very different things," even though they're not different (and it's still completely untrue).

They didn't "merely" say it. They mocked at it and hyperbolized it (is that even a word? ) to the point of reducing 3.X to a mere bunch of quirks and flaws. And that's where they lose me.

They have just "merely" said it. And they also made the video, which is a humorous look at a clunky rule. If you felt mocked or insulting, then it seems you're honestly just looking for any thing to interpret as an insult. That exact thing has happened at my table ("I'm gonna grapple." Four other people around the table stare blankly at the speaker. "Uh... why?"), with the complexity of the rules eventually moving the player to simply attack instead.

And I'd say you're totally lost when you look at something like that as reducing an entire edition to quirks and flaws.

And even here, you're incapable of defend 4E without resorting to attack 3.X.

Oh, I see. Being honest about someone's "baby" is attacking. 3rd Edition has problems with over-complicated rules (grapple, for example) and it's a hodge-podge of content (since stuff is pulled from all kinds of settings). Are you trying to deny this fact, or are you just upset that someone is willing to point it out?

That kind of polarization kind of scares me, because if 4E is being seen as the "anti-3.X" and I find 3.X a good, fun system with some improvable aspects, then the logic conclusion would be to assume that, to me, 4E will be a bad, boring system with some good aspects.

That kind of polarization only exists in your head as far as my tastes are concerned, since your attempt to assign motivations and beliefs to me (a violation of the forum rules, by the way) is completely off base. I played 3E for almost 7 years before I stopped using it because of my problems with it, and I had fun until the frustration pushed me away from it.

But I find people who is constantly crying out "4E sucks" or "4E rules" with just some scarce glimpses of it quite annoying.

I find people who say completely false things and try to attribute them to WotC (or anyone else for that matter) to be quite annoying, myself.

 

[The Little Raven]

Okay, but going from a different approach. I do get the feeling that WoTC's Marketing team is not doing enough to build enthusiasm in the existing player base.

And I won't disagree there, because most existing players I know still feel somewhat hesitant about a new edition (partly because it's simply something new, partly for other reason entirely). A big part, in my opinion, is that D&D is still alive and a new edition is coming out, whereas with 3e, D&D had been in a coma and 3rd Edition was it's new awakening.

But that doesn't excuse the fact that there are people who are attributing false statements to designers/developers/the company for whatever reason. Opinions don't bother me, but falsehoods do.

This is likely to result is a slower start for 4th Edition, until "word of mouth" can overcome many existing player's inititial reluctance.

I don't think it'll be word of mouth that does it. I think it'll simply be release, so we can actually see what the system can do for us and what we can do to it.

My feeling is that a more open and substantive communication with the fanbase during the build up would reduce that reluctance (much as "world of mouth" eventually will), and would give 4th Edition a faster initial start up.

That might be true, but on the other hand, they have work to do that would be slowed down if they were stopping to have a heart-to-heart with fans as much as fans want.

 

[Lizard]

I don't see that video saying anything about previous editions sucking. It's a lightly humorous video that shows some of the quirks and issues that previous editions had.

Then you need glasses.

It basicall said "This game you've all loved and played for the past 30 years was No Fun Ever. Our new edition is Absolute Fun. You won't ever need to look up rules, remember acronyms, or not have the right miniatures![1]"

Seriously, there's some nice system work in 4e, but the marketing staff needs to stop telling us we haven't been having any fun, 'cause if we weren't, there wouldn't be anyone left playing to CARE about 4e.

(And how much can you streamline/simplify things like grapples, trips, etc, before they're too mechanically uninteresting to bother with?[2])

[1]How's that gonna work, precisely?

"So, uhm, are we ever gonna fight something other than bugbears?"
"No way, dude, I can't afford to buy any more minis!"
"So? Just say the bugbears are orcs or something!"
"What? Didn't you see the video? Using the wrong miniatures means we're losers from the 1970s!"

[2]One issue is that most D&D combat is abstract. A single 'to hit' roll can represent many swings, parries, etc. But a grapple is 'real'. You either hug the troll, or you don't, and there's logically going to be things you can/can't do while troll-hugging. This means either complex rules or painfully unrealistic/immersion breaking rules.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

Who else finds this amusing?

I remember, and it's frickin hilarious. Especially how some of the people saying "I can't believe you're staying with 2E, it sucks" are now on the receiving end of the same comments. How's it feel, guys?

 

[The Little Raven]

It basicall said "This game you've all loved and played for the past 30 years was No Fun Ever. Our new edition is Absolute Fun. You won't ever need to look up rules, remember acronyms, or not have the right miniatures![1]"

If you're a kneejerk-reactionary person, yeah. If you're reasonable, not really.

Seriously, there's some nice system work in 4e, but the marketing staff needs to stop telling us we haven't been having any fun, 'cause if we weren't, there wouldn't be anyone left playing to CARE about 4e.

You need to stop interpreting things so negatively, and then trying to assign that negativity to the developers as if they're intentionally doing it. I saw the video as people having fun playing D&D, but running into some of the rougher patches (all of which have appeared in my game). It's not like they have time to show us a 4-hour session of each edition, showing all the fun people were having as well.

When not using miniatures, players sometimes get confused about which is what. (Was the goblin warlord the nickel or the dime?)

When dealing with spellcasters, you often spend a lot of time focusing on their single turn because of all their options, and other people get bored waiting. (Is it my turn yet?)

When dealing with 3e grapple rules, in general, most people didn't bother. (Too much complexity for not enough reward.)

(And how much can you streamline/simplify things like grapples, trips, etc, before they're too mechanically uninteresting to bother with?[2])

Well, since grapple was too complex to bother with, any simplification that makes it effective is good.

"What? Didn't you see the video? Using the wrong miniatures means we're losers from the 1970s!"

More like "The video pointed out that using things other than easy identifiable miniatures or tokens can result in people becoming confused about which coin/eraser/candy is which monster."

This means either complex rules or painfully unrealistic/immersion breaking rules.

Or maybe it means rules you can't conceive of, since not everyone is limited to your vision of game design.