Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
L&L 3/11/2013 This Week in D&D
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Nemesis Destiny" data-source="post: 6100352" data-attributes="member: 98255"><p>I am not expecting "too much" from the playtest "too soon." Unless you interpret what I want as some half-baked tack-on module, which isn't what I want at all, nor is it what I'm talking about. And most comments downplaying the concerns of 4e advocates run along this route; <em>"don't worry, you'll get your precious tactical module. There, there."</em></p><p></p><p>That's not what I'm asking for. How many times does this point need reiterating before it sinks in?</p><p></p><p>I know what I want isn't forthcoming because the things that I feel made 4e great are things baked in at the core system level, which Next doesn't seem to have. I like that 4e has mechanics that lend themselves to light narrativist drift. Nothing I've seen in Next really supports this even half as well; they're very consciously distancing themselves from that approach. If that's what they want to do, then fine, but at least be straight up about it instead of repackaging the same old flavour of D&D and trying to sell me on the fact that <em>"it'll still play like 4e, because tactical module is coming!!!" </em>Sorry, not buying it.</p><p></p><p>The structure of martial classes is a good example. The manoeuvres system might be mechanically balanced in terms of crunch, but it is sorely lacking in terms of mechanical and especially <em>narrative</em> equivalence. They're bland and unappealing so far. And I'm not even talking about necessitating an AEDU-power structure or a combat grid. I don't need either of those things to get the effect I'm after.</p><p></p><p>Peripheral to this, I <em>liked</em> roles. I liked power source. I <em>liked</em> the specificity of it. I liked how class features and the game's rules came together to allow you to make decisions about your character at a metagame level that reinforced the kind of character you want to play. Yet, I understand that it was not wholly popular and why they feel some need to distance themselves from it, even though I feel it's not the direction I want the game going. But I <strong>have to say so</strong>, or I have no right to complain if it doesn't turn out the way I want.</p><p></p><p>Case in point to this, I popped into a thread started by a PF GM asking for advice in his/her game, and it was still basic, basic stuff like players not building to cover all the roles that most PF/3.x players and the Next designers keep telling me aren't necessary. Okay. I remember having those kinds of conversations (years ago now) and seeing it again really underscored to me a lot of what 4e did right. And they want to un-do that? That's just one example.</p><p></p><p>Now it may be that when the 4e-ish module comes out, I may change my mind, but for now, all I can do is judge what I see, and what I see, I don't like as much as what I have, so I will keep advocating for something more to my liking. If I get it eventually, great (if it comes in a timely enough fashion), if not, then I have a game that I do like already. You're happy with Next? Great. Why criticize others for wanting to be happy as well?</p><p></p><p>Yep. I almost didn't respond because this pretty much covers it. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></p><p></p><p>So what does that tell you? It tells me that they're risking the 3.x backlash all over again with this by "burning" their current customer base.</p><p></p><p>Now you could argue, and others have, that they're not doing that (or even that they didn't do that before) but it doesn't matter. Customer relations is all about <strong><em>perception</em></strong>. Right now, the perception is that 4e has been tossed in front of a bus or perhaps a train, depending on your exact level of vitriol. You could argue that this isn't accurate, but it's hard to ignore the derogatory comments they've made on things like skill challenges, "scream-heals," and</p><p>any number of other 4e-isms.</p><p></p><p>Personally, I think this is all a very calculated move on their part, and probably one they think is necessary; publicly trash all the things that drove the 3.x and earlier crowd away while 4e fans are still finishing up their campaigns (after all, we're probably still grinding our way through Heroic tier, pfft *eyeroll*), and then, once the older crowd is "won back" into the fold, that's when they release details about the Tactical Module and start talking about how Awesome(tm) everything about 4e was and Still Is in Next.</p><p></p><p>I picture it like a caricature of a corporate manager having a conversation in two phones at once (probably played by Mel Brooks), where he has one phone in each hand and tells one group one thing while holding the other phone to his chest, then switches off, except that we aren't really on the end of either phone, we're in the room and we can hear everything.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Nemesis Destiny, post: 6100352, member: 98255"] I am not expecting "too much" from the playtest "too soon." Unless you interpret what I want as some half-baked tack-on module, which isn't what I want at all, nor is it what I'm talking about. And most comments downplaying the concerns of 4e advocates run along this route; [I]"don't worry, you'll get your precious tactical module. There, there."[/I] That's not what I'm asking for. How many times does this point need reiterating before it sinks in? I know what I want isn't forthcoming because the things that I feel made 4e great are things baked in at the core system level, which Next doesn't seem to have. I like that 4e has mechanics that lend themselves to light narrativist drift. Nothing I've seen in Next really supports this even half as well; they're very consciously distancing themselves from that approach. If that's what they want to do, then fine, but at least be straight up about it instead of repackaging the same old flavour of D&D and trying to sell me on the fact that [I]"it'll still play like 4e, because tactical module is coming!!!" [/I]Sorry, not buying it. The structure of martial classes is a good example. The manoeuvres system might be mechanically balanced in terms of crunch, but it is sorely lacking in terms of mechanical and especially [I]narrative[/I] equivalence. They're bland and unappealing so far. And I'm not even talking about necessitating an AEDU-power structure or a combat grid. I don't need either of those things to get the effect I'm after. Peripheral to this, I [I]liked[/I] roles. I liked power source. I [I]liked[/I] the specificity of it. I liked how class features and the game's rules came together to allow you to make decisions about your character at a metagame level that reinforced the kind of character you want to play. Yet, I understand that it was not wholly popular and why they feel some need to distance themselves from it, even though I feel it's not the direction I want the game going. But I [B]have to say so[/B], or I have no right to complain if it doesn't turn out the way I want. Case in point to this, I popped into a thread started by a PF GM asking for advice in his/her game, and it was still basic, basic stuff like players not building to cover all the roles that most PF/3.x players and the Next designers keep telling me aren't necessary. Okay. I remember having those kinds of conversations (years ago now) and seeing it again really underscored to me a lot of what 4e did right. And they want to un-do that? That's just one example. Now it may be that when the 4e-ish module comes out, I may change my mind, but for now, all I can do is judge what I see, and what I see, I don't like as much as what I have, so I will keep advocating for something more to my liking. If I get it eventually, great (if it comes in a timely enough fashion), if not, then I have a game that I do like already. You're happy with Next? Great. Why criticize others for wanting to be happy as well? Yep. I almost didn't respond because this pretty much covers it. :) So what does that tell you? It tells me that they're risking the 3.x backlash all over again with this by "burning" their current customer base. Now you could argue, and others have, that they're not doing that (or even that they didn't do that before) but it doesn't matter. Customer relations is all about [B][I]perception[/I][/B]. Right now, the perception is that 4e has been tossed in front of a bus or perhaps a train, depending on your exact level of vitriol. You could argue that this isn't accurate, but it's hard to ignore the derogatory comments they've made on things like skill challenges, "scream-heals," and any number of other 4e-isms. Personally, I think this is all a very calculated move on their part, and probably one they think is necessary; publicly trash all the things that drove the 3.x and earlier crowd away while 4e fans are still finishing up their campaigns (after all, we're probably still grinding our way through Heroic tier, pfft *eyeroll*), and then, once the older crowd is "won back" into the fold, that's when they release details about the Tactical Module and start talking about how Awesome(tm) everything about 4e was and Still Is in Next. I picture it like a caricature of a corporate manager having a conversation in two phones at once (probably played by Mel Brooks), where he has one phone in each hand and tells one group one thing while holding the other phone to his chest, then switches off, except that we aren't really on the end of either phone, we're in the room and we can hear everything. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
L&L 3/11/2013 This Week in D&D
Top