Legends & Lore: Live together, die alone!

[Neverfate]

I'm curious about your statement above... I've found that the Rogue isn't really all that great at being a loner because he is too fragile, in fact the only roles that seem equipped to be both loners and team players in 4e are the Defenders and Leaders... so I'm interested in your perspective on this.

There's no such thing as a fragile rogue. Just a rogue that made bad decisions.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

When I say, "wrong direction," it does not necessarily mean that I feel it is bad to go to previous editions for inspiration. I have very much liked some of the 4e "retro" stuff. I am a huge fan of Essentials, for example.

"Wrong direction" to me, means going back to some of the design tropes of previous editions that clearly were bad design. That can mean a lot of things to different people. I play 4e for a reason, and that reason is the same one that keeps a lot of other folks playing 3.x, PF, and earlier editions, i.e. they actually like the elements of design that I feel 4e fixed.

That said, those people who liked that style of game already have everything they need, and are very unlikely to "buy back into" a new edition simply because it is new. I feel that the pursuit of their money will be a waste of time and will only cost WotC the business of the people who liked the 4e direction.

In summary, taking inspiration and flavour from the past, acknowledging it, that's great. Don't alienate the current audience by making an about-face on 4e's strengths.

Now I don't particularly care about offending your sensibilities ForeverSlayer, but I will qualify this by saying that I don't have any particular grudge against your hero Monte Cook. In fact I quite liked his post WotC work in the context of late 3.x design. But quite frankly, every time he publishes one of these columns, he erodes my confidence in his ability to design a new edition of D&D. I really hope these fears are unfounded, but while Mike Mearls I found pushed "all the right buttons" in his articles and with his designs, I can't say the same for Mr. Cook.

Take from that what you will. I explained this to you as a courtesy; I don't owe you anything.

Essentially you are saying "wrong direction" from a pure opinionated point of view.

One thing you have to understand is if they are truly working on 5th edition, making it like 4th edition would be absolutely pointless. If that was the case then you would be better off calling it 4.5. In other words anything that Wizards puts out is going to be a step backwards for you if it's not 4th edition or something almost exactly like it.

Also, there is something that we need to take a good look at but won't really know the conclusion until later. What it all boils down to is preference and how people want their favorite edition to stick around forever and have all other editions based off of that one. I personally think editions of D&D only last as much as the majority of people have an interest in it. Now if 5th edition rolls next year, or even the year after that, 4th edition will have been the shortest edition of D&D yet. Now, if something works great you would think that a company would stick with it for as long as they can. Now I believe they have but I find that 4th edition may be fading fast and may have been for quite some time. Now of course this is all speculation but I look at these articles as a "what's to come" kind of thing.

Now whether you like 3rd edition or not, Monte Cook is a successful game designer. Wizards would not have hired him on if they didn't know this. Maybe Wizards feels like 4th edition is a step in the wrong direction and they want to change the direction to something more suited for what they feel is the right direction.

At the end of the day it's all about what you the individual prefer and you just pray to god that Wizard's ends up on your side.

 

[mneme]

Neverfate: fair enough -- particularly since a solo-ing rogue's job is to -avoid- combats, not try to solo them.

Now, should this rogue run up against an enemy with tremorsense or otherwise a way to lock on to him/her? There might be trouble.

 

[Imaro]

There's no such thing as a fragile rogue. Just a rogue that made bad decisions.

So what exactly should his decisions be in a loner situation as opposed to a group situation?

 

[Imaro]

Neverfate: fair enough -- particularly since a solo-ing rogue's job is to -avoid- combats, not try to solo them.

Now, should this rogue run up against an enemy with tremorsense or otherwise a way to lock on to him/her? There might be trouble.

Or even an enemy with a high enough perception (or lucky enough roll) to counter his stealth.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

Essentially you are saying "wrong direction" from a pure opinionated point of view.

Yes, an opinionated PV, just like yours.

One thing you have to understand is if they are truly working on 5th edition, making it like 4th edition would be absolutely pointless. If that was the case then you would be better off calling it 4.5. In other words anything that Wizards puts out is going to be a step backwards for you if it's not 4th edition or something almost exactly like it.

One thing YOU have to understand is that your attitude, even if well-meaning is very off-putting. You come across as a troll and a fanboi. Tone it down, or this conversation is over.

Also, there is something that we need to take a good look at but won't really know the conclusion until later. What it all boils down to is preference and how people want their favorite edition to stick around forever and have all other editions based off of that one. I personally think editions of D&D only last as much as the majority of people have an interest in it. Now if 5th edition rolls next year, or even the year after that, 4th edition will have been the shortest edition of D&D yet. Now, if something works great you would think that a company would stick with it for as long as they can. Now I believe they have but I find that 4th edition may be fading fast and may have been for quite some time. Now of course this is all speculation but I look at these articles as a "what's to come" kind of thing.

Not only what you say "all speculation" - it is also demonstrably untrue! If what you say is true, they would not have abandoned 3.x, because we can clearly see there was plenty of interest and life in it still. Likewise, I seriously doubt that 4e is in some kind of Danceyish Death Spiral as you claim.

I will agree with you in that there would be no point in making 5e completely derivative of 4e, unless of course, they steal a page from M:tG and just start making D&D 2013 edition, and slowly evolving a set of mechanics. Each year/season has its books that alter the basics of the game a little, and have new bits to fiddle with, and is considered "core," but at home, feel free to combine as you like.

That eliminates the need for divisive editions, and keeps the revenue stream going.

Now whether you like 3rd edition or not, Monte Cook is a successful game designer. Wizards would not have hired him on if they didn't know this. Maybe Wizards feels like 4th edition is a step in the wrong direction and they want to change the direction to something more suited for what they feel is the right direction.

Yes, Monte Cook is successful, but to be clear, they hired him because of name recognition. He's famous. He's a 3.x guy, and they're trying desperately to reach out to the gamers they alienated in the last changeover. I don't blame them.

The simple fact though, is that an awfully large percentage of those gamers are not coming back. Not even if they hire Monte. Not even if they pull a Winamp and they jump straight to 7.0, in which they makes the next edition 3.x based with the feel of 4e or whathaveyou (i.e. "the best of both"). Not even if he brings back all the design tropes whose absence makes 4e what it is. That is what I mean by "wrong direction." WotC will be left chasing an ever shrinking slice of the RPG pie.

Yes, they're smart (some of them, some of the time). Yes, we'd like to think they know what they're doing. But let's not pretend they haven't royally screwed up before (4e's initial marketing campaign, software tools, pursuing 4e to the exclusion of previous editions, etc). This could blow up in their faces.

At the end of the day it's all about what you the individual prefer and you just pray to god that Wizard's ends up on your side.

INo thanks. But you can feel free if it makes you feel any better, little Jihadist.

 

[Camelot]

I am liking Cook's articles, but I agree about the poll, at least today's. I think that characters should have a team-mode and a solo-mode.

* With 5 players, if every player is in team-mode, they should handle combats well by working together, but if they all play in solo-mode then it will be harder.
* The reverse is true for 1 or 2 players; playing in solo-mode will be easier than team-mode.
* With 3 or 4 players, some can be soloing while others can be teaming, and they can swap around depending on the situation.

What I think 4e does right now is that some classes/roles are team players and some are soloists, which works fine with medium to large sized groups, but makes play with just a DM and 1-2 players difficult. If they start working on 5th edition, this is definitely something I'd like to see them add.

Maybe it wouldn't work as modes exactly, but just that (in 4e terms) half of their powers are team-based and the other half is solo-based; characters shouldn't have to choose between them, or even be allowed to. They'll use whichever set of powers works best for them.

 

[Umbran]

One thing YOU have to understand is that your attitude, even if well-meaning is very off-putting. You come across as a troll and a fanboi. Tone it down, or this conversation is over.

Please allow me to borrow your format to make the point:

One thing YOU have to understand is that you're now resorting to name-calling, which is no less off-putting. You are coming across as rude and demanding. Tone it down, or your part in this conversation will be over.

We expect you to show basic respect for your fellow posters. Calling them derogatory names is right out. If you aren't going to show respect, don't respond to them at all, please. If you really think someone is a troll, report the offending post and leave them alone.

If this is somehow unclear, or you feel a need to discuss it, please e-mail or PM a moderator. Thanks.

 

[Neverfate]

So what exactly should his decisions be in a loner situation as opposed to a group situation?

Don't fight 6 Orcs by yourself while they're awake?

 

[Bluenose]

I am liking Cook's articles, but I agree about the poll, at least today's. I think that characters should have a team-mode and a solo-mode.

* With 5 players, if every player is in team-mode, they should handle combats well by working together, but if they all play in solo-mode then it will be harder.
* The reverse is true for 1 or 2 players; playing in solo-mode will be easier than team-mode.
* With 3 or 4 players, some can be soloing while others can be teaming, and they can swap around depending on the situation.

What I think 4e does right now is that some classes/roles are team players and some are soloists, which works fine with medium to large sized groups, but makes play with just a DM and 1-2 players difficult. If they start working on 5th edition, this is definitely something I'd like to see them add.

Maybe it wouldn't work as modes exactly, but just that (in 4e terms) half of their powers are team-based and the other half is solo-based; characters shouldn't have to choose between them, or even be allowed to. They'll use whichever set of powers works best for them.

Is anyone more familiar with WFRP 3e than me able to explain how the "Adventuring Group" mechanic works in that? Because I think that might be what the article is sort-of suggesting - a way for an individual to have all their normal capabilities, yet also gain something when they're part of a group. The problem being that while I've played some Warhammer 3rd, I'm not really familiar enough with it to say whether the mechanism is one that would convert to D&D.