Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 3847465" data-attributes="member: 18280">Well, this is how it appeared to me:  4e in the works, more miniature-centric, core rules scattered throughout numerous releases to increase necessary buying to have the core game, and a possible bowing out of the rpg industry.  (1)  4e in the works:  They were working on 4e.   Bang-on.[EDIT:  And from reactions on EN World, this seems to be the thing most folks thought was being scooped, and most folks thought the WotC denied....until, of course, 4e was officially announced.](2)  More minature-centric:  What I have read of the previews thus far indicates to me that 4e will be more mini-centric than 3e.  Already mentioned are the movement rates of the Spined Devil.  In addition, some of the "Combat Roles" described seem to be more mini-centric (Controller [EDIT:  I couldn't locate the original Character Roles thread, so I might have misnamed this one.  Anyone?]) as do some of the special abilities mentioned.  In 3e you could ignore 5-foot-steps and AoOs if you wanted, and not worry about minis at all.  In 4e, some core abilities seem to be about moving opponents 5 feet.  I fail to see how that's going to play out well without minis.[EDIT:  The adoption of the Delve Format just before the announcement of 4e, combined with the exclusive inclusion of the Delve Format in the DI is another example of mini-centricism, IMHO.]Of course, WotC's market research for 3e indicated that getting D&D players to buy minis would lead to a serious increase in profit, so this is hardly surprising.I call this bang-on.(3)  core rules scattered throughout numerous releases to increase necessary buying to have the core game:  If the DI material is Core (as WotC has said), then this is true.  Small releases of core material, on a monthly basis, for a small fee.  In addition, we are told that there will be additional PHB, DMG, and MM releases which will be core.  Nowhere in Eric's post do I see anything about collectability (although people were indeed concerned that this was the direction WotC was going in), so this seems correct to me also.(4)  Giving up RPGS:  No evidence for this one.  Now, had WotC said that (4) was wrong, that would be one thing.  But if you read Eric's post, you will see that this is not what they said.  They said, according to Eric, that his information was so far off that it seemed like someone was trying to torpedo his reputation.Now, if I gave you word-of-mouth information, and I was this close, I wouldn't expect someone to warn you that I might be trying to torpedo your reputation.  That doesn't imply to me "There are some wrong things here"; that implies "This is so far off base that it has no contact with reality"......and it apparently had the same implication to Eric, because he decided to get out of the 4e scoop business.  Again, interested parties can see <a href="http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=170633" target="_blank">http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=170633</a>It seems to me that this was certainly "something intended or serving to convey a false impression".  And, regarding the other debunking, saying in response to a question about 4e that WotC intends to support 3.5 though 2008 isn't untrue, but it does seem intended to convey a false impression to me.  YMMV, and obviously does.RC</blockquote>

Verification