| Post/Author/DateTime | Post |
|---|---|
| #1hidakenshiroMar 17, 2011 22:53:01 | The last few books had reprinted information in them... why should i buy books that are 50% crap i already bought? Why are you so damn lazy all of a sudden, wizards? |
| #2celticmuttMar 17, 2011 23:29:08 | Your avatar is right appropriate, no? And the reason the last few books had a lot of re-printed material is because, as was announced oh ... several months before the books ever came out, they were intended as stand-alones that could be used without needing other books. Kinda hard to have a book be stand-alone when it doesn't contain the full rules ... |
| #3hidakenshiroMar 17, 2011 23:38:43 | Your avatar is right appropriate, no? that's not a legit reason at all. D&D is never a stand alone game. you can never buy just one book. |
| #4sfdragonMar 18, 2011 0:04:55 | he means so that you only had to bu the heroes of whatever instead of the dmg and phb. |
| #5hidakenshiroMar 18, 2011 0:38:04 | he means so that you only had to bu the heroes of whatever instead of the dmg and phb. i know what he meant... and he is wrong. you need a monster manual, a phb, and a DMG. to play. the "heroes of" books are just PHBs |
| #6mercaiusMar 18, 2011 0:43:27 | Players don't need a manual of monsters or a guide for dungeon masters. That was the point. Even moreso, a player who purchases Heroes of Forgotten Kingdoms did not need to pick up Heroes of Forgotten Lands, and players who owned either book did not need to buy the Player's Handbook. |
| #7MarandahirMar 18, 2011 0:52:28 | Okay, that's a great picture. But it doesn't lay any validity to your claim that they are "wrong" about the books standing alone. The player only needs one book – PH1, HotFL, or HotFK. PH2 and PH3 couldn't stand alone without the PH1 before them. They reprinted the same information across HotFL and HotFK to avoid that issue. And both books reprinted and updated information from PH1 because they were meant as a different entrance into the game. |
| #8ORC_SinisterMar 18, 2011 1:00:13 | I’ve removed content from this thread because baiting and off topic disruption is a violation of the Code of Conduct. You can review the Code of Conduct here: wizards.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/wizards.cfg... |
| #9j.i.n.x.Mar 18, 2011 1:15:13 | The new books are targeted for newer inexperienced players such as seen in this image fc09.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2010/351/f/5/... Lol I see you mlp and rase you a mlpfl =) |
| #10hidakenshiroMar 18, 2011 1:51:08 | The new books are targeted for newer inexperienced players such as seen in this image fc09.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2010/351/f/5/... Lol I see you mlp and rase you a mlpfl =) gaming much like friendship is magic i got your alignment right here: 25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lgdsfeWxeZ1qz... Okay, that's a great picture. the point was i already explained they are wrong but they never actually countered the argument they just restated their point . you need 3 books to play. reprinting information is god damn lazy and terrible. They're doing it again in the heroes of shadow book with the assassin. Wizards has run out of ideas to fill up books with. They have run out of ideas for D&D. I don't even understand how that's possible but that's sure what it looks like to me. |
| #11MalakLightfootMar 18, 2011 2:31:23 |
Heroes of the Fallen Lands and Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdoms were meant to be new entry points to the game. Reprinting basic game infromation was part of their mandate. It was also intended that players need only pick up one of the two books in order to be able to play, so the information that is shared between the two books is also part of their mandate. Yes, if you bought both, or either of them and the Rules Compendium, you got redundant information. You made that choice when you bought them to do so. If the redundancy reduced the value to you, then hopefully you took some more time to consider before you actually bought them (or, if the value was reduced far enough, then you did not buy them). The only "reprinted" information in Heroes of Shadow is the Executioner, which has never seen the printed page. When we first saw the Executioner, it was as a DDI exclusive playetest. Then to playtest a revised version. Finally a preview version of the one to appear in Heroes of Shadow. You may have missed these memos, but the information was out there (in all fairness, the fact that the Executioner we saw in December was a "preview" was snuck in on us, we were not privy to the fact that the Executioner was actually going to be in the pages of Heroes of Shadow until the class failed to make the February update to the Character Builder). You are complaining about things that obviously needed to be reprinted, and which we were informed about, for the most part, up front before the product's release and youare acting like you were tricked. You call yourself a Hida, but you sound more like a Doji. |
| #12hidakenshiroMar 18, 2011 3:51:34 |
what mandate? It was also intended that players need only pick up one of the two books in order to be able to play, so the information that is shared between the two books is also part of their mandate. just because they wanted that way doesn't absolve them froming lazy. the idea was lazy from the start. i expect more from a company that wants me to buys books from them once a month.
i haven't bought a book since essentials was announced actually i'm still a little annoy at the notion 4.5 after they made promises that they wouldn't do that at the start of 4e.
i have print out of it in my bag. however i wanted more to be added on to that preveiw.
you're really slow on the uptake aren't you, bub? no the information didn't need reprinting.
|
| #13celticmuttMar 18, 2011 4:53:17 | Complain all you like, but the fact of the matter is you're wrong. Both factually, and officially, because the official WotC statement is that you only need one of PHB1, HotFL, or HotFK to be able to play the game. And they designed both Heroes books to accomplish that official position. Whether you like it or not is irrelevant. |
| #14MalakLightfootMar 18, 2011 4:58:36 |
I'll stop at answering this, because the rest is just you being belligerent (in this much, you are the Crab you claim to be). The "mandate" was that they design and release a new entry point for beginners and lapsed players. If you can explain to me how they would create and release a product that does this without reprinting any of the information in any previous source, I'd love to hear it. If you can do that, I'll apologize for comparing you to a simpering Crane and acknowledge that you belong in the Hida family. |
| #15hidakenshiroMar 18, 2011 6:36:23 | in this much, you are the Crab you claim to be). i find it very hard to take you seriously when you say dumb crap like this.
and where did this mandate come from? it sounds pretty ridiculous to me.
i wouldn't the original PHB was fine and simple enough. only the mentally handicapped and children under the age of 10 wouldn't be able to understand it and even then one experienced player is all it takes. I don't know about you guys but i don't know any gamer that walked into a store and randomly bought a D&D book and taught themselves how to play. The game is introduced to new players by friends and family, not books. |
| #16mouthymercMar 18, 2011 6:44:36 | I don't know about you guys but i don't know any gamer that walked into a store and randomly bought a D&D book and taught themselves how to play. The game is introduced to new players by friends and family, not books. Maybe for this generation. This is not absolutely true for many people playing the game, especially those of us around in the beginning. While I didn't go into a store I did ask for the game as a gift once I learned of its existance and taught myself to play as at the time no one I knew played it. To presume your line of thought is to doom sales. Even people who are introduced to the game will appreciate an introductory form of it to get them going. |
| #17hidakenshiroMar 18, 2011 6:54:08 |
... you're actually helping to prove my point. times have changed. a great many people now play this game, if they didn't wizards would never have bought the rights when TSR when under. Even people who are introduced to the game will appreciate an introductory form of it to get them going. and like i said the PHB covered this just fine. thank you for reinforcing my point that was very helpful of you. |
| #18mouthymercMar 18, 2011 8:34:05 |
Heh heh. You still have not made your argument. There is still need for an introductory form of the game. If you have been paying any sort of attention to what has been happening, you would realize that these new books are in response to a need. The Essentials line was put forth in order to draw new blood and to recapture those who had left. It was found that the PHB as it is was not getting these people for whatever reasons, even if it was doing well in and of itself. Similar in some ways that there was a Basic D&D line along with the AD&D line. The difference this time is that the current lines are compatible while the earlier one were not. Whether or not you feel there is a need is immaterial beyond your own opinion. The information was reprinted and updated so the new line could be complete. Don't like it? Don't buy it. |
| #19sallaMar 18, 2011 10:06:28 | If you think the book is worth the cost, and you want to buy it, buy it. If you don't, don't. There's no reason to whine about it. |
| #20Dane_McArdyMar 18, 2011 10:44:10 | he means so that you only had to bu the heroes of whatever instead of the dmg and phb. If that's all you need, why did you buy anything else? Also, you can return it. Please do so if you are unhappy. Amazon lets you return with shipping on them. Problem solved. Lets all go find a crime scene to gwak at. |
| #21drnickMar 18, 2011 13:08:19 | Why does wizards expect me to support D&D? I'm not sure that they expect you to do anything more than buy books that you're interested in. If a book doesn't interest you, don't buy it. |
| #22MalakLightfootMar 18, 2011 13:15:05 | in this much, you are the Crab you claim to be). If you have no idea what I am talking about, then I apologize. I am having a bit of fun with you based upon your forum handle. Most of us pick our forum handles for a reason. Malak Lightfoot was one of my first D&D characters, ever, originally made just under 30 years ago, and remade in every edition of the game that has come out since Advanced Dungeons & Dragons. I assumed that you named yourself Hida Kenshiro because you identified with Hida Family of the Crab Clan in the Legend of the Five Rings Roleplaying and Card Games (and, briefly, the Oriental Adventures Setting for Dungeons & Dragons 3.x). The Crab Clan are well known for being proud, headstrong and independant. Taken to the extreme, Crabs can be stereotyped as belligerent, quick to anger, brutish and combative. As the leading Family of the Crab Clan, the Hida exemplify all of these traits, good and bad. If your forum handle is nothing more to you than a name, picked because you thought it sounded cool, or if Kenshiro Hida is your real name, and you have no background with the land of Rokugan, then all of my references to Crabs, Cranes, Hida and Doji are going to sounds like nonsense.
Like all mandates, it came from a higher power. In this case Wizards and Hasbro upper management. We have been told that 4E sales have been disappointing, and that they expected a higher conversion rate of 3.x players than they got. It was decided that the best way to bring up the 4E sales numbers was to create a new entry point to attract new players and to lure back lapsed players of previous editions (the "Red Box," for example, is calling to people who played in the 70s and who may have skipped 3.x or even AD&D 2E). In fact, a lot of Essentials calls back to 2E, which seems to be the target of the lapsed player portion of the initiative (probably because 3.x fans have Pathfinder, and as the most recent of previous editions, the "wound" from the split is still fresh). Whether you think the new entry point was necessary or not is immaterial. Accounting decided that 4E was underperforming, and management felt that a new entry point was a way to bring those numbers up and increase the customer base. There is no way to create a new entry point without reprinting the basic game rules.
I don't know if you have noticed, but there have been a lot of people who have come on this board recently who have not been introduced by friends and family. The Essentials initiative has succeeded in bringing in new players by getting the books into the mass market ("big box" bookstores like Barnes & Noble and stores like Target and Walmart). These people did pick it up because they saw it on the shelf, the name sparked with them because Dungeons & Dragons is brand name that is recognized by 80-90% of Americans even if they have never played the game, and decided to give it a try. |
| #23thaxMar 18, 2011 15:23:25 | Really, of all the things wrong with Essentials, you gloom on to the fact that it repeats information? Really? You mention that the PHB, DMG and I assume you also would include the MM is needed to play the game. Essentials (Which is 10 products, btw, not just the three mentioned in this redacted thread) attempts to replace these staples, two player books that has a lower price point than the PHB's, a DM kit that has tokens and other nifty things, a boxed MM set and standard tile sets. If you get only essentials products, you will still be able to play the game. Now the actual Kit Builds (called Classes in the books) and Mage builds in the player books are a separate issue, mixing Power Sources in some and roles in a couple, and they don't have a lot of the choices that the full classes in the PHB's/Setting books have, nor can they choose to take other aspects of the base class they are built from other sources. The best product in the Essentials line is the Rules Compendium. If you don't like repeated (or clarified) information, though, don't bother. |
| #24ah_stormbringerMar 18, 2011 16:25:52 | I have to agree with Thax that of all things wrong with the essentials line you are griping about is reprinted material, which we were informed about months in advance. If you did not take the time to research before you bought them then thats your problem. Essentials sales have not been good either and that should be a real worry as if sales continue to sag I think hasbro will pull the plug on the pen and paper D&D line. I am not a supporter of the essentials line but I cannot fault them for trying something to bring new players in. |
| #25GattMar 20, 2011 4:48:55 | and where did this mandate come from? it sounds pretty ridiculous to me. I would agree with this. I've seen a few insiders comment on lower than expected sales, and my local premiere shop owner commented to me that his WOTC rep was telling him they were unhappy with the sales. For kicks, I've been keeping an eye on the D&D 4e stock at my Borders as it's going out of buisness, mind you this is located in my cities biggest commercial district. So far, even discounted to 40% off, all they've managed to move is one copy of Essentials. All of the books are still there. If a product line can't be moved at nearly half off it's not doing well. I would imagine WOTC's been directed to find a solution to the problem, and I would imagine that Essentials is one step of the solution. We'll find out what the future holds at Gencon though, I am convinced we'll see a major D&D announcement then, I'm expecting 5e. From what I've read here, the 4e release line is slowing which indicates to me that WOTC is changing directions, as that's what they did with Dragonlance when they moved out of Saga. My prediction is a unified 3.x/4e set of rules, with their particulars threaded into options. An attempt to woo both sides, and letting the stronger survive. I believe there's an outside chance that it'll be a either a "D&D classic line" advancing the 3.x rule set, or 5e with the 4e elements scaled back to be more inline with the preceding editions. Overall though, I'm pretty confident it'll be a unified line. WOTC rarely does a full about-face, usually they head for middle ground and then move from there. Whichever it is, we'll find out in a few months. |
| #26ah_stormbringerMar 20, 2011 4:55:51 | Or they will shut the pen and paper line down all together, which I could see happening also. Putting out a new edition so quickly would lead to a backlash WOTC and D&D might not recover from. We only got alittle over 2 years out of 4th before essentials and the amount of products we are getting now are few and far in between.The 3.x fans now have pathfinder and would likely stick with it, and I think WOTC would loose a lot of 4th edition fans if they put out a new edition so soon. So I think putting out a 5th edition now would be really bad for business. |
| #27Obvious_NinjaMar 20, 2011 12:45:16 | I really like 4th ed and have had more fun with it than I ever had with the rules bloated 3.x edition(s). That being said, if you like Essentials or not, WotC should have seen that it would be perceived as a 4.5 even though its not. I am curious as to how the new DnD boardgames are selling (not that I'll ever see numbers.) If the return on those is better, we might see much more of the secondary products come to the forefront than the pnp splat books... |
| #28MarandahirMar 20, 2011 17:35:13 | I heard Hasbro's boardgame market was selling better, hence the push for WotC to develop these four D&D board games (3 of the Adventure Module Board Games, and 1 Risk-esque board game). Everyone who's played them I've encountered love them. I like them a lot too. A lot of people who find D&D too complex find them more fun, since you can open it, and play a whole game within an hour or two, and be done. |
| #29hattaMar 21, 2011 15:44:26 | I taught myself to play when I first started back in '07 with 3.5 rules. |
| #30KalnaurMar 21, 2011 17:19:53 | For kicks, I've been keeping an eye on the D&D 4e stock at my Borders as it's going out of buisness, mind you this is located in my cities biggest commercial district. A fair amount of places give deals that exceed that percentage as a matter of course. Which is just one reason that Borders is going under. Gotta say though, now that I have a job, I almost wish our Borders was closing. I would totally take a 40% off D&D Book or 7. ;) |
| #3122_Over_7Mar 21, 2011 23:32:58 | If you think the book is worth the cost, and you want to buy it, buy it. If you don't, don't. There's no reason to whine about it. Have you SEEN his avatar? |
| #32tsukinousagiMar 22, 2011 7:37:52 | The last few books had reprinted information in them... why should i buy books that are 50% crap i already bought? Why are you so damn lazy all of a sudden, wizards? What? are you crazy? Shut up and buy every damn book Wizards is so kind to publish you impossible person. We all know you are made of money and have no capacity to discern good ideas from bad ones. It's not relevant to anything, bad editing is not unacceptable, nor is redundancy or physical quality. You will like all of your books and you will buy all of their books without question. Hey they have bills to pay you insentive swine. Think of the children (theirs) that depend on your money flowing into Wizards on a regular basis. Repent by going out and buying spare copies just to be generous. |
| #33lokiareMar 24, 2011 0:17:14 | The last few books had reprinted information in them... why should i buy books that are 50% crap i already bought? Why are you so damn lazy all of a sudden, wizards? Sounds like WotC mission statement... We'll sell it to them cuz they are stooped enough to buy it... |
| #34hattaMar 24, 2011 1:18:49 | The last few books had reprinted information in them... why should i buy books that are 50% crap i already bought? Why are you so damn lazy all of a sudden, wizards? So says the person who cannot even spell stupid, let alone recognize something that is. Also, that comment you reacted to. Yeah that was sarcasm. |
| #35celticmuttMar 24, 2011 2:12:28 |
One, no one here is an apologist. People who call others apologists have weak arguments and can't get their point across without attacking someone. Two, that is not the rant of an unsatisfied customer. That is the rant of someone who doesn't bother to read. |
| #36lokiareMar 24, 2011 14:22:00 | Sounds like WotC mission statement... We'll sell it to them cuz they are stooped enough to buy it... Which is funny because I intentionally misspelled it. My comment was snark. I'm sorry I forget to use [snark] tags...
I'm sorry, but there are people that are on these boards that "When WotC craps in a box and calls it Essential to the game, they laud it as the best thing ever released". There are opologists, just as there are haters... |
| #37majesticmooseMar 24, 2011 14:30:43 | I'm sorry, but there are people that are on these boards that "When WotC craps in a box and calls it Essential to the game, they laud it as the best thing ever released". There are opologists, just as there are haters... Wouldn't it be more appropriate to call them fans? you know, common abreviation in language for the word fanatic, a rabid supporter of an organization, usually inspite f common opinion? I mean, would you call a die hard Red sox supporter before they won the series an appologist? no, because they aren't appologizing for anything. Now if wizards completely reversed it's take on "new class design" (say in June) and in July people were saying, "it was a good try, but sometimes there are errors in game design. essentials wasn't that bad though, it just wasn't quite good enough." that would be far more like an apologist. Like american internment camp apologists after WWII. |
| #38ah_stormbringerMar 24, 2011 16:50:38 | Either way there are both haters and so called fans but I think the majority here are somewhere in between. Both sides have been called by many different names but they are just anmes to catorgise those types of players. |
| #39majesticmooseMar 25, 2011 14:50:55 | Subtlety and common sense... |
| #40GarthanosMar 25, 2011 16:15:14 | Why does wizards expect me to support D&D? Like that answer... big time. |
| #42Tony_VargasMar 25, 2011 19:06:26 | OK, I have to say it:Why does wizards expect me to support D&D? Because it was the only game in town - in 1974. |
| #43lokiareMar 26, 2011 15:01:46 | I'm sorry, but there are people that are on these boards that "When WotC craps in a box and calls it Essential to the game, they laud it as the best thing ever released". There are opologists, just as there are haters... What we had concentration camps in WWII? OMG we are evil... no wait... we're talking D&D here... |
| #44MarandahirMar 26, 2011 15:57:05 | No, we did have Internment Camps during WWII for Japanese-Americans. Maybe not as bad as Concentration Camps, but we did. I am no apologist. I simple defend what I like and criticise what I don't, like everyone else. |
| #45Tony_VargasMar 27, 2011 13:23:39 | Wouldn't it be more appropriate to call them fans? you know, common abreviation in language for the word fanatic, a rabid supporter of an organization, usually inspite f common opinion? Yeah, 'apologist' is just one of those words. Apologists rarely ever apologize for anything, they defend something, even if it's indefensible, but they don't apologize for it... wierd, huh? The dictionary definition of apologist really doesn't even sound that bad: "one who speaks or writes in defense of someone or something." There's certainly a connotation of apologists being uncritical and dogmatic, though. 'Fans' (short for 'fanatics') would certainly be imprecise, since fans /can/ certainly be negative abou the object of their obsession, and the word aplies equally well to both apologists and haters. Hater and apologist are very apropriate terms, not least for their negative conotations. |
| #46celticmuttMar 27, 2011 18:33:58 | As I said before, the only people who use the term apologist and mean it are the ones who have a poor excuse for an argument in the first place. |
| #47lokiareMar 27, 2011 19:59:26 | As I said before, the only people who use the term apologist and mean it are the ones who have a poor excuse for an argument in the first place. Same for hater... |
| #48calronmoonflowerMar 27, 2011 20:26:25 | As I said before, the only people who use the term apologist and mean it are the ones who have a poor excuse for an argument in the first place. Both statements are actually wrong. It is possible to mix good arguments with poor style. It is also possible to mix good arguments with poor ones. It just that people that use such terms generally do not have good arguments, rather than they are the only ones. |
| #49Tony_VargasMar 28, 2011 2:52:42 | Meh, hater and apologist, whether you're using them, or having them aplied to you, have no bearing on the quality of your argument, just what side you come down on. If you're objecting to something, you're the hater, if you're consistently defending it, you're the apologist. Just embrace your hater or apologist status, and fight on. You're not going to win any arguments by whining about labels. |
| apologistsmajesticmooseMar 28, 2011 10:30:37 | Wouldn't it be more appropriate to call them fans? you know, common abreviation in language for the word fanatic, a rabid supporter of an organization, usually inspite f common opinion? Touche. I should have been more clear. I meant apologist according to option #1: apologist (plural apologists)
Even if you use option #2, an apologist isn't really accurate because (at least I hope) 4e isn't a faith, a cause, or an institution. |
| apologistsReloMar 28, 2011 12:22:04 | Wouldn't it be more appropriate to call them fans? you know, common abreviation in language for the word fanatic, a rabid supporter of an organization, usually inspite f common opinion? first off 4e is a faith (we got a great pantheon yuo know) but now serious, I agree but I think most people refrence a general stream of opinion. |
| #52majesticmooseMar 28, 2011 12:36:15 | Of course, and I don't want to discourage people building off each other's ideas or diminish a person's ability to organize into camps. It just comes down to the tea party/tea bagger syndrom. (Note: for the purposes of this disucssion I have no political opinion or agenda, and this is strictly for comparitive purposes). The tea party was given the monicker of teabaggers as a derogatory name to denigrate the party but also to weaken the position of the moevement. It's not just that they were being insulting, but that by giving a movement a nickname like that you undermine the potential for understanding because it automatically places the polical discourse on uneven footing. In much the same way, "hater" "apologist" and othe rlabels externally imposed create a sense of undermining. It's rare that someone who applies the nickname is trying to sumarize the position of the nicknamed. More often it's an attempt to undermine the arguement or easily catagorize the poster so that they can be casually disregarded. I've been called an "apologist" and Pro essentials by several peopl on the boards, and trth be told I don't care all that much. I'm far away from my group and so they don't have access to my Essentials books. Consequently, most of the essentials stuff rarely comes up. What I do post about though is usually what I consider to be unsubstantiated rhetorical non-sense, or just general (and unintentional) misinformation. I HATE WILLFUL IGNORANCE AND MISINFORMATION. IRL I think that willful ignorance and misinformation, especially in the media should be criminal. On the boards it just becomes a peeve of mine. So While I've been called a few (not necisarily intended to be derogatory) names on the boards I don't really blame anyone. But calling someone a hater or an apologist, even if they are, usually just promotes indignant behavior on the part of those that see it as justified/outrageous. If nothing else it promotes incivility. Not that I'm blameless in that regard. Some people just get my goat. |
| #53MalakLightfootMar 28, 2011 13:08:28 |
Actually, as I recall, they began calling themselves teabaggers, not understanding that the term had another meaning (being mostly old, white conservatives). Those who opposed the tea party and were hip enough to understand the alternate meaning ran with it. The teabaggers wound up with egg on their faces, and had to find a new term for themselves. By that time, the damage had been done, and the general public has a hard time taking them seriously as a result. This is why, when creating a new political or social movement, one should at least consult the urban dictionary to find out if your nickname or acronym will attach you to something you would rather not be attached to (you should really consult a professional marketing firm and get their help crafting your public image). |
| #54majesticmooseMar 28, 2011 13:20:50 |
Fair enough, although somehow I doubt that the name originated in the party. Don't those guys watch it's always sunny? Ge'ez. Your point is well received, but I still stand by my position that labeling people, even when deserved, merely exacerbates a situation. |
| apologistsTony_VargasMar 28, 2011 16:13:56 | The dictionary definition of apologist really doesn't even sound that bad: "one who speaks or writes in defense of someone or something." Y'know, I can't find an on-line dictionary that has "one who makes an apology" as a definition of 'apologist.' Several use the one I quoted, above, several, including Merriam-Webster use the more specific definition you have as 2. Google Dictionary has this one: "A person who offers an argument in defense of something controversial." That fits the Essentials apologists very well. Anyway, Essentials is a cause, albeit a trival one, and 4e is an institution, albeit a trivial one, so it works for the Merriam-Webster definition, too. Yeah, assigning labels can be used to try to dismiss an argument or as an ad hominem. Arguing about labels can also be used to cover a weak argument. So I say, don't worry about the label, worry about the argument. If one side is dismissively assigning a label, and the other is whining about it, they both must have pretty weak arguments. ;) |
| #56Kaviyd3Mar 28, 2011 16:32:53 |
Just to set the record straight -- the Tea Party folks never called themselves "teabaggers" -- they were the "Tea Party" from the beginning, obviously taking the name from the Boston Tea Party event of pre-Revolutionary War days. The "teabagger" nickname would not even have made sense in that context. What happened was that a few of them appeared at a rally with signs that said "Teabag the Democrats" and the like. Their opponents saw that and never let them forget it. Those signs were what put egg on their face and gave their opponents the opening to refer to them as "teabaggers". |
| #57MalakLightfootMar 28, 2011 16:45:35 |
I knew they had opened the door by using "teabag" first, but I didn't know the particulars. It's too bad, too. Tea Party was a good choice of name for a political movement given its history in the Revolution. |
| #58celticmuttMar 28, 2011 18:27:01 |
There have been plenty of Tea Partiers with signs saying things like "Proud to be a Teabagger." |
| #59Tony_VargasMar 28, 2011 18:55:39 | Just one way to fight against a negative label. Like if putting 'Proud WotC Apologist' or 'Never Stop Hating Essentials' in your sig. ;) |
| #60Alter_BoyMar 28, 2011 19:00:26 | It's too bad, too. Tea Party was a good choice of name for a political movement given its history in the Revolution. Mind you, I don't think many from Boston, Massachuscetts are part of the modern Tea Party. Maybe they should have gone with the Alamo instead? |
| #61hattaMar 28, 2011 19:07:14 | It's too bad, too. Tea Party was a good choice of name for a political movement given its history in the Revolution. Yes, because we all remember how well that turned out. |
| #62ranadielMar 28, 2011 19:22:14 | It's too bad, too. Tea Party was a good choice of name for a political movement given its history in the Revolution. So they should have named themselves after the location of a Mexican military victory? I don't think that would work too well for them... |
| #63hattaMar 29, 2011 23:58:26 | The Updated Warlord, or more accurately, the Marshal (warlord).wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/dra/2... |
| #64ghostshadeApr 03, 2011 14:37:35 | Does anyone know if there will be another release focusing on the 4 edition core books and not on essentials? |
| #65MalakLightfootApr 03, 2011 14:46:14 | Does anyone know if there will be another release focusing on the 4 edition core books and not on essentials? It's all core. This includes the material in the Essentials books. Expect ALL future product to support both Essentials and pre-Essentials classes. |
| #66excalainenApr 03, 2011 15:43:52 | Does anyone know if there will be another release focusing on the 4 edition core books and not on essentials? I expect future books to be primarily intended to support Essentials classes and classes published after Essentials (vampire et al.). Some of that material will be compatible with those classic 4e classes that have Essentials equivalents. But I expect no new powers, class-specific feats and other direct support for sorcerers, barbarians, monks, etc. except maybe an occassional Dragon article. |
| #67longlive2ndeditionApr 03, 2011 17:23:02 | It seems to me as though the gamers that don't support Essentials are better off keeping their opinions to themselves. I have never seen so many fanboys jump on one guy for his opinion in my life! To the OP, I support your opinion that The Essentials books are 50% reprints of stuff from earlier PHB's. Unfortunately if you state the obvious around here the Pro-Essentials supporters come out of the woodwork and pick you and what you say apart vultures. Its also the reason I avoid these forums like the plague. Everyone just needs to take a step back. Its a game thats open to interpretation. If I don't lilke the Essentials material, I as a dungeon master don't have to support it, and you can bet I won't! I'm not alone either. |
| #68MalakLightfootApr 03, 2011 17:36:25 | It seems to me as though the gamers that don't support Essentials are better off keeping their opinions to themselves. I have never seen so many fanboys jump on one guy for his opinion in my life! I would like to point out that no one denied the amount or scale of reprinted material. No one attacked him for deciding that there wasn't enough new material in the Heroes of the Fallen Lands and Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdoms to warrant his purchase of the books. The argument was that Wizards felt that a new entry point was needed, and that when creating such, reprinting of material is necessary. After that, there have been plenty of posts of people denying the neccessity of a new entry point. To which, the "pro-Essentials" response is that whether or not a new entry point was neccessary, Wizards made one. Essentials exists now, you can find a way to deal with it (even if that way is banning it from your games), or you can whine about it and accomplish nothing by doing so. |
| #69celticmuttApr 03, 2011 17:39:57 | ....... You can't support his opinion that Essentials are 50% reprints, because it's not an opinion. It's a fact. A fact that no one argued. A fact that has been known from the beginning, and was part of the entire mission statement. Maybe you should actually try reading the thread instead of automatically jumping in on one side 2e. |
| #70excalainenApr 03, 2011 17:54:41 | It seems to me as though the gamers that don't support Essentials are better off keeping their opinions to themselves. I have never seen so many fanboys jump on one guy for his opinion in my life! I think that I speak for most Essentials "haters" when I say that we do not mind another entry point for recruiting new players to the hobby. We only object to Wizards abandoning classic 4e support in favour of Essentials classes in future products. In my opinion, Essentials should have been left as the entry point before graduating to classic 4e with its more complex AEDU class structure that allows for more interesting character creation and customization. |
| #71MalakLightfootApr 03, 2011 18:05:41 |
And the PHB line of books still supports that idea. The problem is that Essentials came later, so the sense of progression is absent. It feels kind of counter intuitive to make a character with a new book, and then when you want a more complex character that you have to refer to a book that was published two years before. Class Compendium would have fixed THAT problem, but it would have encountered a different problem. There is no reason for a player who did not come in with Essentials to buy the book. If you have the PHB, the Class Compendium would have been a waste of money. The vast majority of D&D players already own the PHB, so printing even a smallish run of Class Compendium would have been a real gamble, with terrible odds, too. |
| #72longlive2ndeditionApr 03, 2011 18:40:43 | Forum ate my post. I am not retyping it. Short version - Everyone was poking fun at the OP's Avatar as far as I could tell, while he was simply re-iterating what all of the other "haters" had already voiced. The bulk of the edition war is over, but from what I can see when someone who isn't a regular to these forums starts a new Thread regarding their distaste for Essentials they seem to get shat on by every fan boy with an opinion. This is the reason I am glad that I run my own D&D website/Forums. I count myself among these haters, and from what I can tell every gamer I know can be counted among them as well. At my FLGS the essentials books are collecting dust while miniatures and books like DSCS and Psionic Power continue to sell. The only product stamped Essentials that never seems to be in stock is the Tiles Master Sets. Clearly WotC isn't listening, and although I don't have statistics to back it up (as most people will likely say "Link or it did'nt happen") I am more than certain the Essentials format has hurt D&D sales, all the gamers I have talked to haven't bought books since Dark Sun came out. ****** EDIT - I forgot to mention that I agreed with excalainen on his opinion of the "entry point" for 4E. I know it has been said numerous times, but this new entry point should have been introduced when Keep on the Shadowfell came out. Even then I am not certain that I would have started playing D&D again. What attracted me most to 4E was the feel that Fighters and Rogues had in comparison to Wizards and Clerics. In the editions of old that I used to play back in the day, Wizards were the most powerful (once again I know that this point has been said numerous times) at the high levels, while Fighters became boring to play because on their turns their options were "I attack with my battle axe" 4E was the first time I nodded in approval of the changes to the games old editions and rules. "At-Will Powers!! Wow! Why did'nt they think of this before?" - Each class has special attack powers that they can use as many times as they want, and each attack power is custom fitted to the type of character that I envison myself playing. When being completely surrounded by enemies in AD&D I remember asking my old DM, Can I attack all of them? His answer "No, pick one and attack." 4th Edition - See powers like Dire Wolverine Strike, Great Cleave. 4E got me back into D&D. Essentials sent me packing. |
| #73excalainenApr 03, 2011 18:41:11 |
I fail to see the problem. Who cares about what year a book was published as long as it belongs to the same edition (assuming that it is still available in stores). |
| #74lokiareApr 04, 2011 2:16:49 |
Its available on Amazon.com used for $7 |