| Post/Author/DateTime | Post |
|---|---|
| Rurik_Siann04-02-08, 07:50 PM | Alright people let me just say that I personally only got into playing DnD at the beginning of 3.5 and have loved every minute given to me by Lord Ao. But things seem to be getting out of hand. Mechanical designers, plot designers, friend, Faerunians, country men lend me your ears (your eyes would actually more helpful in this situation, but you get the idea.) This puppy is going down quicker than a bottle of Dew on game night. You aren't pleasing your customers people! How hard is that to get. Every time I get on the boards I see another person threatening to simply stop buying WotC products and just making due with what they got. So if this is a money move I would suggest someone take a whiff, because once you do you will find that there is a nasty burning smell coming from the money in the bank. Sure you guy's as a company are appealing to an audience that you have yet to reach, but in doing so you're kinda trouncing on top of those you already have. And, at least from the outside looking in, the scales are a little unbalanced on the loosing side if you see what I mean. Now no one is saying don't publish 4th edition for those who you are trying to capture as an audience, but leave a little something for those who aren't happy with the new rules. Now before I become the target of a flaming post about how I'm "just against change" let me say this. Most of the changes to core 4th that I've seen where long since house rules in the games I play in. Many things from the new suggested method of encounters (with a group of smaller creatures instead of a uber beasty), to changes in the mechanics. However things like you are "supposedly" doing with the Realms, just aren't going to fly like you hope they will. I say this with the intention of waking up who ever is supposed to gather info about what the customers want from these boards (I'm pretty sure that that is at least part of the reason that these boards were created). I guess the real cut and dry of it is that I believe that if you kept producing things more along the lines of before fourth edition, then it would take the sting out of the whole change over. Players, Dungeon Masters, any one else who has an opinion, let me here it. Am I way out of line here or is there truth to what I'm saying? Let's here from producers that prowl the board, if they wish to be heard. Gimme some feed back. Good Gaming people, |
| MarkusTay6304-02-08, 11:21 PM | The target audience of the new edition are people who don't currently play, and therefore have no presence on these or any other P&P RPG boards. they want 'fresh meat". Hence, they could care less about the current, ageing group of gamers who play and are all complaining about the game. If they attract that audience they're after, then they win, simple as that. Its a big gamble for them, but whatever, its no skin off my nose. My old books arent going anywhere anytime soon, and I'm looking forward to all the money I'll be saving. :D |
| Lord Karsus04-03-08, 12:22 AM | -I've taken advantage of the lack of Community Liasons on the Forgotten Realms area here to install myself as leader. No, I'm kidding...;P -All of that aside, WotC has done the reasearch, and believes everything theyr are doing in 4e to be worth it. Who knows what will happen? Only the future will tell. By just being D&D, however, I see the failure of everything highly doubtful. |
| Daenaan04-03-08, 12:35 AM | -I've taken advantage of the lack of Community Liasons on the Forgotten Realms area here to install myself as leader. Translation: LK thinks a rickety wicker lawn chair with a stained seatcushion is a throne. |
| Lord Karsus04-03-08, 12:37 AM | Translation: LK thinks a rickety wicker lawn chair with a stained seatcushion is a throne. -A throne is a throne is a throne. -Crazy. I edited that the exact moment as you posted. |
| Daenaan04-03-08, 12:40 AM | -A throne is a throne is a throne. And how! http://www.planetsmilies.com/smilies/happy/happy0001.gif |
| MarkusTay6304-03-08, 10:39 AM | Mine has a hole in it and a little silver handle that swirls pretty blue water around. :D On Topic Remember that Hasbro is a toy company first and foremost - they want to sell products to CHILDREN, not old, farty adults. They think they can market this game better to kids, because of their years of experience in the field. That might actually be true, but I'm not seeing it. Where are the advertisements? The toys? The cartoons? They have all three, but only WE see them, and we don't care or need them. They need to do a media blitz - put free figures in a cereal box or something. I'm just a carpenter, but I got Four kids and I know what works on them and what don't. I just don't understand their game plan. :confused: |
| Stigger04-03-08, 11:39 AM | The plan does seem to be just a little on the massively disorganized side of things... |
| Eli_the_Tanner04-03-08, 06:57 PM | I find your lack of faith disturbing. --Give Saga a spin. |
| Stigger04-03-08, 07:13 PM | Saga's just about the only reason I've not given up completely on 4e... |
| Rauric04-03-08, 07:25 PM | I am 33 and am all for 4E. My game group seems that way as well and we are all in the 30s and 20s range. I think the new edition is geared to old fans who want to have fun and new people who may look at it and go "Hey, that reminds me of a MMORG I play." Yes I think that is what they are doing. I know some MMORG real life buddies who have heard me talk about it that would play if they had the time. The market is not for kids. What kid could afford all these friggin books. Maybe the starting age is 16+ because those people have jobs and disposable income. I think the gamble is the new FR. WOTC makes it money on splat books that are not Setting Specific. Settings are for a small niche of their gaming consumer I think. If FR does well then they will be happy as clams. If FR fails... well they still have another setting as well as the core stuff that will sell. I was fine with the old FR but am intrigued by the new stuff and will pick it up. If I feel it blows then I won't buy it, if I love it I will. I like the changes and so do the people at my LGS. We shall see how that goes in August. |
| Eli_the_Tanner04-03-08, 07:32 PM | Saga's just about the only reason I've not given up completely on 4e... Aye, I've managed to have a few games with it now and I like the way it plays, very elegantly. I'm hoping that 4E will sort out the few bugbears I have about new system....but it's looks very promising. |
| Lord Karsus04-03-08, 11:28 PM | I find your lack of faith disturbing. --Give Saga a spin. -I don't like 'SAGA' because it's not compatable, really, with any of those other books I have. It's much easier to just stay with the old system, and not have to buy more stuff. Right now, anyway. When 'SAGA' has more support for it, I'll probably, eventually, switch to it. |
| Eli_the_Tanner04-03-08, 11:56 PM | True enough, one of my (minor)beefs with Saga is the lack of support, Wizards definately seems to be focusing on the minatures side of things in that regard. However as a showcase for 4E it's probably worth a go, the Saga core rulebook gives everything you need to play straight off the bat. Sourcebooks are kind of superfluous in terms of Star Wars lore really and there is already a adventure arc starting (with a new adventure coming out every month). If the only thing putting you off Saga is the lack of support (as opposed to the rules) I think you'll get on quite well with 4E - as long as Wizards doesn't do something silly.:rolleyes: |
| Lord Karsus04-03-08, 11:58 PM | If the only thing putting you off Saga is the lack of support (as opposed to the rules) I think you'll get on quite well with 4E - as long as Wizards doesn't do something silly.:rolleyes: -Well, I'm not planning on picking up 4e, at least at first, for the same reason: Not enough support at the start, while I have plenty of other 3e books. |
| Eli_the_Tanner04-04-08, 12:06 AM | Sounds like what I'm hearing from alot of people, I know my group and I are in no hurry to bin our 3.x books are embrace 4E as our new master. That is if we even do switch over. |
| Lord Karsus04-04-08, 12:47 AM | Sounds like what I'm hearing from alot of people, I know my group and I are in no hurry to bin our 3.x books are embrace 4E as our new master. That is if we even do switch over. -That's my outlook, with more of an emphasis on that last sentence. |
| MarkusTay6304-04-08, 03:14 AM | Besides, by the time they do Eberron 4e, they will have fixed all the bugs and we can all go out and buy the 4.5 books. ;) |
| Stigger04-04-08, 06:34 AM | I can hardly wait for the KotOR sourcebook for Saga myself... not really sure how its not that compatible though. There was a fairly good conversion guide somewhere on the SW site I thought... didn't have many problems converting anything over to it really, though my collection of stuff wasn't that extensive I'll admit. |
| Lord Karsus04-04-08, 06:39 AM | I can hardly wait for the KotOR sourcebook for Saga myself... not really sure how its not that compatible though. There was a fairly good conversion guide somewhere on the SW site I thought... didn't have many problems converting anything over to it really, though my collection of stuff wasn't that extensive I'll admit. -It's not that I have conversion problems...I've never tried to convert anything. But, between me and the guy who DM/GMs our group's Star Wars campaigns, we have plenty of books, with plenty of rules, skills, feats, abilities, PrCs, and so on. Why bother right now? |
| Stigger04-04-08, 06:47 AM | Why not? Really though, for me its mostly about speed. Combats are fast and easy with a minimum of fuss, which is a definite plus for me and mine, particularly now that I don't have much time to spare. If that's not really an issue, I don't really see a compelling reason though. :D |
| Lord Karsus04-04-08, 06:58 AM | Why not? Really though, for me its mostly about speed. Combats are fast and easy with a minimum of fuss, which is a definite plus for me and mine, particularly now that I don't have much time to spare. If that's not really an issue, I don't really see a compelling reason though. :D -That's the thing. I haven't played Star Wars in a good two years or so. Recently, my DM/GM started up a new campaign. Before that, I think our group, in total, has played three, or four Star Wars campaigns. We haven't even scratched the surface of all of the books and assorted stuff we have. So, like the 3e ruleset, I'm not tired with it, or anything, and as a result, I find no compelling and immediate reason to switch immediatley. Same thing with the problems in the 'RCR' rules. I don't see any huge, major problems, except the experience system. Like 3e, which I don't see any huge problems, I don't have any compelling reasons to immediatley switch systems. |
| Rurik_Siann04-04-08, 11:52 AM | The topic turned somewhere back in Albuquerque, but that isn't an issue. It is kinda funny though. I did just get back to look over the boards and figured I would further elaborate on my thoughts. As players and Dungeon Masters you have emphasized part of my point. That being, while you aren't against buying new books or even new edition, you aren't really tired with the last edition. I understand that Hasbro is a toy company at it's core, but at least in my opinion they stand to gain more money by not discontinuing the last edition. I do admit that I don't have a degree in business or have a wonderful mind for designing new mechanical systems, but as a customer/consumer and peer with other customer/consumer I really feel that if the business consultants sat down and looked at the numbers that they would see that it would be a sound business practice. Ok, that last sentence really looks like something William Faulkner would write. I digress. I know some one earlier that we, the people that seem to frequent the boards, aren't the target audience, but doesn't make sense that they could make more money by appealing to multiple audiences at the same time? I mean if anyone is going to get the younger audience into DnD wouldn't be us? And the happier they keep us the more likely that we will pass on our love of playing to our kids, but if we as customers feel as though we are milked for money then we won't. I hope that my logic isn't skewed, but this make more sense to me. Not only would they expand their client bases, but in making us more comfortable then they are almost ensuring continued business. Let me know something, and hopefully it won't be another week before I check the boards again. Good Gaming |
| 18DELTA04-04-08, 12:11 PM | Sounds like what I'm hearing from alot of people, I know my group and I are in no hurry to bin our 3.x books are embrace 4E as our new master. That is if we even do switch over. -Right give WotC three Years and maybe the 4e bard will be released in players handbook #3.:rolleyes: That is what my gaming group doesn't like. We may have to wait a couple of years for Psionics, barbarians, druids, and bards. So they can force feed me the warlord, Rich's baby the warlock, draconians, and another of Rich's baby's the swordmage this summer.:banghead: :bored: :uh-huh: :nonono: :banghead: Richard Baker MUST be stopped!!! I fully understand why Paizo made their choice to not support 4e with Pathfinder. I dont want to wait a couple of years(Shelling out money) for basic upgrades(I don't play wow, never have, would like to try it). I saw a designers blog(at EnWorld) where they were making out how your per day powers were like the BLACK BUTTON ON YOUR CONTROLLER!!!!:rolleyes: So now I could really care less about 4e for a couple of years. I will check it out, but I have a 3.5 Library to complete!!!:D 18D;) |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin04-04-08, 01:16 PM | I've said it before, but I'll say it again: --I'm looking forward to the 4E system. I'm not "married" to 3.XE rules, after all. --On the other hand, I do NOT like the changes that have occured in the Realms setting, and will not be using the 4E Realms. |
| Eli_the_Tanner04-04-08, 01:19 PM | I mean if anyone is going to get the younger audience into DnD wouldn't be us? And the happier they keep us the more likely that we will pass on our love of playing to our kids, but if we as customers feel as though we are milked for money then we won't. I'm not sure how true that is these days, I've noted that a large proportion of gamers from my generation and the new generation have gotten into Role-playing and FR through novels and computer games. The old tradition of "handing the books down to your younger brother/sister ceremoniously and saying 'I'll show you how to play'" is not something that can be counted on as sound global advertisement. Most seem to get into role-playing and D&D independantly then seek out more. Also, if your in the habit of telling someone not to play 4E because your not happy with Wizards 'unsound buisness practice' then I would like to discourage you from that sort of propaganda. Keeping young, emerging role-playing enthusiasts from enjoying an edition that is arguably catered for them and their generation seems like shooting your own points in the foot. Now I fully understand why you, me and many of us current gamers are hesitant to crossover into this new edition (in fact I support a cautioned approach). As stated the new edition has very little in material support - heck! it's not even released yet, we also have a perfectly fine 3.x/2e and 1e systems all giving us much enjoyment. However If a new gamer told me they were interested in getting into D&D(maybe they played some games, read a Drizzt novel or whatever) then I wouldn't say: "Wizards doesn't know what people want anymore, why don't you play a now unsupported rules system, that is catered for a generation 10 years your senior". It makes more sense to say "Well, there is a new version just coming out that seems quite fun to play, it has a lot of features you might like; online support, multiple fresh settings and a great community to help you with any issues you might have". It's not the setting, it's not the edition, it's not the company; it's the individual role-player getting that chance to do that which he loves. I hope that my logic isn't skewed, but this make more sense to me. Not only would they expand their client bases, but in making us more comfortable then they are almost ensuring continued business. Let me know something, and hopefully it won't be another week before I check the boards again. Good Gaming I'm not sure how the presence or absence of a new edition would make you less comfortable, certainly when many people have been complaing of too many 'useless splatbooks' coming out - if Wizards has run out of steam with 3.x then it makes sense for them to move on, rather than driving up prices and dropping page counts for books we don't really need. P.S. Just a note for your future reference, would you mind breaking up your blocks of text they can be quite hard to read otherwise. Thanks. - Eli the Tanner |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin04-04-08, 01:23 PM | P.S. Just a note for your future reference, would you mind breaking up your blocks of text they can be quite hard to read otherwise. Thanks. I agree. And as for being "milked of our money", remember you can choose not to buy products. The point of any for-profit company is to make money and maximize profit. |
| Stigger04-04-08, 02:29 PM | Hence why new editions are inevitable... I seem to recall reading or hearing something to that effect... maybe that Chris Perkins video interview thingy... not the nuke one though I don't think. |
| MarkusTay6304-04-08, 11:23 PM | I hear the new three-volume collector's set of Core books will come inside a beautifully detailed replica toilet... Floating in circles, of course... ;) <throws another log onto the fire> |
| Stigger04-05-08, 02:00 AM | Didn't need that mental image, thank you very much. :P |
| msatran04-05-08, 08:20 PM | Yeah, especially since we don't know what kind of log he's burning. |
| Lord Karsus04-05-08, 10:19 PM | Hence why new editions are inevitable... I seem to recall reading or hearing something to that effect... maybe that Chris Perkins video interview thingy... not the nuke one though I don't think. -Well, of course. I mean, even though I like the 3rd Edition Ruleset, eventually, I'll get tired of it. I mean, I have been using it for like...six years or so (on and off, though D&D campaigns are usually somewhat consistent). At some point, theorerically, things are going to get monotonous. When that happens, I might switch to 4e, or perhaps that 3.75 Pathfinder thing. Same thing with Star Wars 'RCR' and 'SAGA' rules. But, until that time comes, and G-d knows when that will be, since I have maybe only 50% of all of the generic 3e books. It could be in another six years, or it could be in two weeks. For some people, it's sooner than it is later. -That said, I looked at the name of this thread again, and it made me think of a bomb threat...:D |
| Stigger04-06-08, 12:39 PM | Never thought of the idea of getting bored with a set of rules... kind of an alien thought to me for some reason. Finding something better, sure... ditching some out of sheer boredom, not so sure. |
| Lord Karsus04-06-08, 05:49 PM | Never thought of the idea of getting bored with a set of rules... kind of an alien thought to me for some reason. Finding something better, sure... ditching some out of sheer boredom, not so sure. -Of of sheer monotony, sure. Imagine never using/incorporating new rules and such for the next fifteen years, playing D&D once or twice a week, mostly every week. -Car companies do this all the time. Every year, the Ford Mustang is a little different from the year before it. Imagine if the Mustang still looked like it did when the car was first produced? |
| Daenaan04-06-08, 05:57 PM | -Of of sheer monotony, sure. Imagine never using/incorporating new rules and such for the next fifteen years, playing D&D once or twice a week, mostly every week. -Car companies do this all the time. Every year, the Ford Mustang is a little different from the year before it. Imagine if the Mustang still looked like it did when the car was first produced? New cars don't really "drive" differently, though... maybe smoother, with better shocks and suspension... but mostly the changes to new cars are cosmetic. But I get the general idea. |
| Lord Karsus04-06-08, 07:04 PM | -Rules in D&D are "cosmetic", in effect, to a degree. Sort of. I mean, what was that famous qute attributed to Gary Gygax? "The biggest mistake we made was that we told DMs they need rules. They really don't."? Something like that. |
| LumTheMad04-06-08, 07:11 PM | -Rules in D&D are "cosmetic", in effect, to a degree. Sort of. I mean, what was that famous qute attributed to Gary Gygax? "The biggest mistake we made was that we told DMs they need rules. They really don't."? Something like that. Without written rules every DM would waste most of the evening dodging dice. :D |
| Lord Karsus04-06-08, 07:24 PM | Without written rules every DM would waste most of the evening dodging dice. :D -They're oftentimes (I originally said usually, but I can't guarantee the validity of that statement) diceless, so there'd be no dice dodging going on. |
| Eli_the_Tanner04-06-08, 08:53 PM | Without written rules every DM would waste most of the evening dodging dice. :D I've been involved in a number of campaigns that are completely diceless. Pure roleplaying can be very fun and requires a certain symbiosis between player(s) and DM - not for everyone though, I guess. |
| LumTheMad04-07-08, 01:24 PM | True. But then you can't even say that you are playing D&D because without dice you are throwing almost all, if not all the mechanics overboard. You are certainly roleplaying (probably even more than you would with dice) but the system you are using is completely ignored. So it could be as well Vampire as it is D&D. |
| Lord Karsus04-07-08, 02:35 PM | But then you can't even say that you are playing D&D because without dice you are throwing almost all, if not all the mechanics overboard. -Good point. But, is D&D defined by the mechanics of the game, or the general elements and such that it espouses? I tend to see the latter, and not the former. Rules change, so 1e D&D is just as much D&D as 4e D&D. |
| Eli_the_Tanner04-07-08, 08:02 PM | -Good point. But, is D&D defined by the mechanics of the game, or the general elements and such that it espouses? I tend to see the latter, and not the former. Rules change, so 1e D&D is just as much D&D as 4e D&D. Beat me to it! My thoughts crystallised by the words of Lord Karsus....maybe I'll give up posting and give me dancin' digits a rest. |
| Lord Karsus04-08-08, 12:49 AM | My thoughts crystallised by the words of Lord Karsus....maybe I'll give up posting and give me dancin' digits a rest. -Nah, don't give up posting. The more, the merrier around here! |
| BrennonGoldeye04-08-08, 10:15 AM | -Nah, don't give up posting. The more, the merrier around here! Agreed. :D |
| Alediran04-08-08, 02:22 PM | For me D&D is both the Fluff and the Crunch, therefore a rulesless roleplaying can be a good fantasy (even FR based) roleplaying, but it's not playing D&D. |
| Rurik_Siann04-09-08, 05:16 PM | Well it seems I was wrong. I would like to be man enough to admit it. Thank you all for letting me know the facts from your perspective. I appreciate everything and am going to drop this particular subject. Who ever would like to continue posting on this board, I'm sure, is free to do so, however I will not be checking it. Thanks Good Gaming |
| johnkretzer04-11-08, 02:56 AM | -Good point. But, is D&D defined by the mechanics of the game, or the general elements and such that it espouses? I tend to see the latter, and not the former. Rules change, so 1e D&D is just as much D&D as 4e D&D. I agree D&D was more than just a rule set...it was the races...classes...worlds...the Cosomolgy...the magic system...wait can we really 4th editon D&D then since they have decided to pretty much dump everything? |
| Lord Karsus04-11-08, 03:08 AM | wait can we really 4th editon D&D then since they have decided to pretty much dump everything? -That's up to the individual to decide. Are there enough "staples" (I think those are what others refer to as Sacred Cows, though I, myself, are not familiar with the term as applied to the game) to warrant it still being considered Dungeons and Dragons? |
| Green Elven Vampire04-11-08, 03:26 AM | Mmmmmm... something smells very good indeed!! Wait, oh it's just my burning hatred for 4ED. |
| Stigger04-11-08, 04:33 AM | A lot of the names are familiar, even if the fluff that goes with those names has been altered nearly beyond recognition... ;) I exaggerate of course, but I'm sure the point comes across. :D |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin04-11-08, 11:24 AM | -That's up to the individual to decide. Are there enough "staples" (I think those are what others refer to as Sacred Cows, though I, myself, are not familiar with the term as applied to the game) to warrant it still being considered Dungeons and Dragons? That's pretty much was sacred cow means--a staple, although there is the added conotation that the "sacred cow" is above criticism and reproach and, in the context of this game, should not be removed (you remove what you find "faulty", and people think sacred cows couldn't possibly be faulty). |
| Lord Karsus04-11-08, 11:50 AM | That's pretty much was sacred cow means--a staple, although there is the added conotation that the "sacred cow" is above criticism and reproach and, in the context of this game, should not be removed (you remove what you find "faulty", and people think sacred cows couldn't possibly be faulty). -Ah, I see. Just by the usage, I could tell that the term seemed to have some negative connotations. -The more you know! :thumbsup: |
| MarkusTay6304-11-08, 11:58 AM | I ate some 'Sacred Cow' once. Afterwards, I took a Holy S__t. :P |
| Lord Karsus04-11-08, 12:03 PM | :rimshot: |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin04-11-08, 12:05 PM | -Ah, I see. Just by the usage, I could tell that the term seemed to have some negative connotations. -The more you know! :thumbsup: Indeed.:P I'd like to add to what I said, though. It's true that some people really do consider D&D staples "sacred cows". However, the term is generally used to discredit those who don't like certain changes--it's basically another way of saying "you just HATE CHANGE!" Just because someone doesn't like it that X is being removed from D&D doesn't mean they think it's a "sacred cow". |
| MarkusTay6304-11-08, 12:07 PM | Right - it originally comes from Westerner's lack of understanding of Indian Culture - why are all the people starving, yet cows roam around the streets freely? It's something you 'Can't touch', even though doing so would make a lot of sense (to others). |
| Lord Karsus04-11-08, 12:13 PM | However, the term is generally used to discredit those who don't like certain changes--it's basically another way of saying "you just HATE CHANGE!" -Yup, just as I thought. Right - it originally comes from Westerner's lack of understanding of Indian Culture - why are all the people starving, yet cows roam around the streets freely? It's something you 'Can't touch', even though doing so would make a lot of sense (to others). -Hmm. That's not even the reference I was thinking of. Makes sense, though. I was thinking of idolatry, as in the golden cow. |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin04-11-08, 12:17 PM | -Hmm. That's not even the reference I was thinking of. Makes sense, though. I was thinking of idolatry, as in the golden cow. I think that meaning works too, actually.:) |
| Lord Karsus04-11-08, 12:19 PM | I think that meaning works too, actually.:) -Well, Eastern or Western definitions, it's the same thing. Different applications. |
| Alediran04-11-08, 01:16 PM | I ate some 'Sacred Cow' once. Afterwards, I took a Holy S__t. :P :rofl: That made me laugh. |
| aardwolf04-12-08, 11:33 PM | And how! http://www.planetsmilies.com/smilies/happy/happy0001.gif my throne is porcelein |