If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Krypton Radio)   Stock up on the Cheetos and Mountain Dew and relive the days before you lost your virginity. Company releases every version of Dungeons and Dragons ever made   (kryptonradio.com) divider line 264
    More: Cool, Mountain Dew, Wizards of the Coast, Dungeons & Dragons  
•       •       •

15730 clicks; posted to Main » on 23 Jan 2013 at 1:27 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



264 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-24 12:01:11 PM

JohnnyC: I've been looking for a good D&D game to get into... I moved to a new town where I don't know anyone. I have kids and spend a good portion of my time taking care of them and don't get out of the house a whole lot. Unfortunately, I have yet to find a good game.


I've got a friend in Grand Blanc that might know some people or be able to get in contact with his old group. I can put you in touch with him, if'n you'd like. He's in grad school in Detroit at the moment, but he spends time up there occasionally.

Sadly, I'm on the other side of the state, else I'd invite you to our group.
 
2013-01-24 12:05:52 PM

mattador: Eh, I've got all my 4E stuff, I'm good.

/yes, seriously, its great, you're just stupid.


I feel the same way about 4e. (Fist pump) I found the "lack of roleplay" comment laughable because to me roleplay is all in your head and a DM can always do a skill-check against the basic stats. Combat was streamlined and it made more sense to me than 3.5e.

3.5 was very munchkin-friendly and forced you to set up a character in a certain way, so much for RP.

I hope in 5e they don't get rid of all the innovations of 4e just due to the haters. I heard they are bringing back Vancian magic, which I hate and it makes no sense.

But this is a step in the right direction releasing all the classics to keep everyone happy.
 
2013-01-24 12:41:45 PM
shortymac
I hope in 5e they don't get rid of all the innovations of 4e just due to the haters. I heard they are bringing back Vancian magic, which I hate and it makes no sense.

"Quick, Aramil! Use that same jump-in-the-air-and-make-three-attacks move you did a second ago!"
"I can't! It's still the same fight!"
 
2013-01-24 12:53:49 PM

Mike Chewbacca: yet_another_wumpus: ekdikeo4: Weaver95: as I said many times before when this was announced yesterday...while I applaud this effort and believe it to be a VERY good business move...it's far far too little and very late to the table.  about 5 years too late, in fact.  WoTC is attempting to reverse the damage done to their business model by a CEO who is/was a f*cking moron with no understanding of his target market or the genre he was selling.  But hey, he got his golden parachute so go capitalism go!

*sigh*

sorry.  i'm only slightly bitter about that.  again, WoTC is behind the bell curve on this one.  paizo and several other companies grabbed hold of the digital sales market 5 years ago and 1. hammered out the technical issues long, long ago and 2. established trust with their customers and built up a reputation for selling a quality product at a decent price.  Paizo has even started including digital maps specifically designed to work with tablet computers, and that will 'layer in' DM info, then remove it at a touch so players can look at it and use it during play.

not saying WoTC can't make a go of this tech but...they've shot themselves in BOTH feet, then decided to run a marathon race 20 min after the starting gun went off.

I think this marks the largest "old" company that I've heard of actually -getting- how the digital world works now.

Two things (in reverse order of what you said):
First, Magic the Gathering became a hit largely because of the internet. Yes, there was an internet before the world-wide-web, before the eternal September when AOL linked to the internet, and most college students were on it (possibly requiring a NeXT machine to make it easy). Hopefully WoTC execs understand this (I'm not betting on it, and I'm sure turnover especially after a buyout is high).

Second, once Gary Gygax was forced out you could say the same things about the CEO during the second edition AD&D era. Things were going downhill rather badly until WoTC bought them ...


THIS

At Fan Expo Ed Greenwood, forgotten realms creator, talked about the management bungles of WOTC, Hasboro, and TSR.

At TSR employees would make him deliver bad news to her because he wasn't a employee and thus couldn't be fired. Everyone there was afraid of her and there was a lot of business mistakes.

/He's never been an employee apparently, only a consultant for all 3 companies
//According to him, Hasboro wants "a nice big box that a parent buys at walmart and puts it under the xmas tree. Which is why we're in this situation."
 
2013-01-24 12:57:09 PM

RanDomino: shortymac
I hope in 5e they don't get rid of all the innovations of 4e just due to the haters. I heard they are bringing back Vancian magic, which I hate and it makes no sense.

"Quick, Aramil! Use that same jump-in-the-air-and-make-three-attacks move you did a second ago!"
"I can't! It's still the same fight!"


Yes, I know it's a game mechanic, but I found the at-will/encounter/once-a-day system easier to manage and makes more sense (as a magic-user anyway) than "prepare a spell in advance and only use once a day".

At least in 4e playing a low-level wizard wasn't boring or a deadly occupation.
 
2013-01-24 02:08:42 PM

shortymac: mattador: Eh, I've got all my 4E stuff, I'm good.

/yes, seriously, its great, you're just stupid.

I feel the same way about 4e. (Fist pump) I found the "lack of roleplay" comment laughable because to me roleplay is all in your head and a DM can always do a skill-check against the basic stats. Combat was streamlined and it made more sense to me than 3.5e.

3.5 was very munchkin-friendly and forced you to set up a character in a certain way, so much for RP..


You CAN roleplay with any system, and you will find good roleplayers eventually no matter which system you use. But some systems are a little bit more conducive to roleplaying than others, and rolepleyers tend to gravitate towards those systems.
 
2013-01-24 03:02:05 PM
upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-01-24 09:10:39 PM
In the fark Pathfinder group, my halfling rogue has skinned a direweasel and is going to make a pimp-coat out of it.

Hell yeah
 
2013-01-25 12:48:38 AM
shortymac
Yes, I know it's a game mechanic, but I found the at-will/encounter/once-a-day system easier to manage

As a game mechanic, it's great. 4E is a great game... a great board game. As an RPG, it's terrible. I mean, mini-game-like "skill challenges" for non-combat encounters? What happened to having to think of solutions and try them?

and makes more sense (as a magic-user anyway) than "prepare a spell in advance and only use once a day".

Eh, there's an in-universe justification for that system- a spellcaster needs eight hours (or whatever) to rest and around an hour to mostly-cast the spells, except for the very last step which triggers it. So he's storing the prepared spells in his head all day, and can't replace them without clearing his head for a few hours.
Keep in mind that this system was written 35 or so years ago, when magic in fiction and games was still treated as incredibly rare and difficult to master, as in decades of study to learn the most basic spells and casting one was the equivalent of reciting a computer program written in Japanese translated into Swahili (and if you mispronounce one word half way through, too bad!). Before people got used to the idea of mana pools and machine-gun-like push-button-cast-spell mechanics. So the idea that a powerful wizard could still only cast a few spells a day was completely normal. I don't think it could rightly be called D&D without that.

At least in 4e playing a low-level wizard wasn't boring or a deadly occupation.

And then an unstoppable force of destruction at higher levels... At 17th level, a fighter gets +1 to-hit; a wizard makes causality and the space-time continuum his biatch.
 
2013-01-25 02:57:43 AM
shortymac:

Yes, I know it's a game mechanic, but I found the at-will/encounter/once-a-day system easier to manage and makes more sense (as a magic-user anyway) than "prepare a spell in advance and only use once a day".

At least in 4e playing a low-level wizard wasn't boring or a deadly occupation.


I find it interesting that this same talking point gets hauled out every single time someone brings up a preference against 4e. (And I'm not really trying to pick a fight, but this gets a little old.)

The reality is, if your 1st level Wizard can only cast one spell per day (and do nothing else), you might want to rethink whomever is running your Wizard. Because the guy rolling up that Wizard apparently decided to use Intelligence as a dump stat. If said Wizard has so much as a 12 Intelligence, they're already running two spells per day, in addition to the other things they're able to do. Find them a wand (Magic Missile or Sleep), and they're worth any fighter in the group.

And here's the thing: Yeah, Wizards are pretty squishy in 3.5, for the first couple of levels. But with just the slightest application of Mage Armor and Sleep, they're more than powerful enough to justify their space in the party. And when they hit their stride by 5th level or so, there's next to nothing that can match them for sheer power. It's the trade-off, and being that very few games are stuck at levels 1~4, I don't really understand the tired old whinge that they're boring or fodder. (Any more than a dedicated healer would be.)

The best thing about 3.5, which I never see being brought up in any thread about 4e, is that the load-out of feats and character options allows pretty much any sort of character that you can conceive of. Multi-classing allows you to tweak out a character in fascinating ways, and prestige classes allow for an inane amount of character depth. The contention that there's only one survivable build of a character is silly, given all the options that are available. As long as some basic roles are filled within the party, most things are open.

/ seriously not trying to pick a fight
// if you're happy with your game, stick with it
/// stale talking points are for the Politics tab, though
 
2013-01-25 10:46:46 AM

vermiis: shortymac:

Yes, I know it's a game mechanic, but I found the at-will/encounter/once-a-day system easier to manage and makes more sense (as a magic-user anyway) than "prepare a spell in advance and only use once a day".

At least in 4e playing a low-level wizard wasn't boring or a deadly occupation.

I find it interesting that this same talking point gets hauled out every single time someone brings up a preference against 4e. (And I'm not really trying to pick a fight, but this gets a little old.)

The reality is, if your 1st level Wizard can only cast one spell per day (and do nothing else), you might want to rethink whomever is running your Wizard. Because the guy rolling up that Wizard apparently decided to use Intelligence as a dump stat. If said Wizard has so much as a 12 Intelligence, they're already running two spells per day, in addition to the other things they're able to do. Find them a wand (Magic Missile or Sleep), and they're worth any fighter in the group.

And here's the thing: Yeah, Wizards are pretty squishy in 3.5, for the first couple of levels. But with just the slightest application of Mage Armor and Sleep, they're more than powerful enough to justify their space in the party. And when they hit their stride by 5th level or so, there's next to nothing that can match them for sheer power. It's the trade-off, and being that very few games are stuck at levels 1~4, I don't really understand the tired old whinge that they're boring or fodder. (Any more than a dedicated healer would be.)

The best thing about 3.5, which I never see being brought up in any thread about 4e, is that the load-out of feats and character options allows pretty much any sort of character that you can conceive of. Multi-classing allows you to tweak out a character in fascinating ways, and prestige classes allow for an inane amount of character depth. The contention that there's only one survivable build of a character is silly, given all the options that are availabl ...


Ah, good points.  I like HERO for the reason that you can make any character feasible.  An old saying we used to have at the table was ' "That's not how you do that" is a D&Dism, "That's one way to do that" is a HEROism.'  And i've been in games ranging from giant anime mecha robots that hurled planets at one another as weapons, down to a little old lady sluething around the retirement home and dueling with an umbrella (and she died violently to a cthulu-type monster).

And my problem with 4e was sort of the opposite side of the coin from yours.  They made fighters into melee wizards.  Essentially all the classes worked the same, more like an MMO, which i really thought was entirely so they could tie it into D&D Online or the new Neverwinter or something.  Still, they dumbed the system down, which is great for getting new players in, but frustrating to those who know 3.5 and before.  This is also why i have trouble with some MMOs, the class restrictions suck.  So my warrior can never learn a spell, and i'm limited to the few choices i'm given, basically power A or power B?

Crap, my last warrior in a Fantasy Hero game was a frail old sage who kept and drank potions of Youth he invented that turned him into a gorilla of a barbarian for an hour at a time, and that barbarian had, besides wicked strength and a huge greatsword, a ranged attack in which he could concentrate his stench into a blinding/gagging cloud.

Make that work in D&D 4th ed.  That might even be a bit tough in 3.5.
 
2013-01-25 01:08:10 PM

RanDomino: shortymac
Yes, I know it's a game mechanic, but I found the at-will/encounter/once-a-day system easier to manage

As a game mechanic, it's great. 4E is a great game... a great board game. As an RPG, it's terrible. I mean, mini-game-like "skill challenges" for non-combat encounters? What happened to having to think of solutions and try them?

and makes more sense (as a magic-user anyway) than "prepare a spell in advance and only use once a day".

Eh, there's an in-universe justification for that system- a spellcaster needs eight hours (or whatever) to rest and around an hour to mostly-cast the spells, except for the very last step which triggers it. So he's storing the prepared spells in his head all day, and can't replace them without clearing his head for a few hours.
Keep in mind that this system was written 35 or so years ago, when magic in fiction and games was still treated as incredibly rare and difficult to master, as in decades of study to learn the most basic spells and casting one was the equivalent of reciting a computer program written in Japanese translated into Swahili (and if you mispronounce one word half way through, too bad!). Before people got used to the idea of mana pools and machine-gun-like push-button-cast-spell mechanics. So the idea that a powerful wizard could still only cast a few spells a day was completely normal. I don't think it could rightly be called D&D without that.

At least in 4e playing a low-level wizard wasn't boring or a deadly occupation.

And then an unstoppable force of destruction at higher levels... At 17th level, a fighter gets +1 to-hit; a wizard makes causality and the space-time continuum his biatch.


Yeah but try GETTING to those levels.

In fact, I think it was one of the D&D Next panels claimed they did a survey and found out that most people never break 10th level due to time constraints, groups falling apart, etc.

Maybe it's because I'm a younging (26) that I feel vancian magic is "unnatural" and "cumbersome". I suspect in 5e they are going to make it a choice. But who the hell knows, now anyway.
 
2013-01-25 01:29:55 PM

vermiis: shortymac:

Yes, I know it's a game mechanic, but I found the at-will/encounter/once-a-day system easier to manage and makes more sense (as a magic-user anyway) than "prepare a spell in advance and only use once a day".

At least in 4e playing a low-level wizard wasn't boring or a deadly occupation.

I find it interesting that this same talking point gets hauled out every single time someone brings up a preference against 4e. (And I'm not really trying to pick a fight, but this gets a little old.)

The reality is, if your 1st level Wizard can only cast one spell per day (and do nothing else), you might want to rethink whomever is running your Wizard. Because the guy rolling up that Wizard apparently decided to use Intelligence as a dump stat. If said Wizard has so much as a 12 Intelligence, they're already running two spells per day, in addition to the other things they're able to do. Find them a wand (Magic Missile or Sleep), and they're worth any fighter in the group.

And here's the thing: Yeah, Wizards are pretty squishy in 3.5, for the first couple of levels. But with just the slightest application of Mage Armor and Sleep, they're more than powerful enough to justify their space in the party. And when they hit their stride by 5th level or so, there's next to nothing that can match them for sheer power. It's the trade-off, and being that very few games are stuck at levels 1~4, I don't really understand the tired old whinge that they're boring or fodder. (Any more than a dedicated healer would be.)

The best thing about 3.5, which I never see being brought up in any thread about 4e, is that the load-out of feats and character options allows pretty much any sort of character that you can conceive of. Multi-classing allows you to tweak out a character in fascinating ways, and prestige classes allow for an inane amount of character depth. The contention that there's only one survivable build of a character is silly, given all the options that are availabl ...


I'd argue that most people get "stuck" between levels 1 to 4 because it takes a while to level up and half the time groups dissolve due to changing circumstances.

The highest level I have ever attained is 6 I believe, then the group I was in dissolved. I'm lucky to get to level 2 actually. I remember listen to a D&D talk and they realized that most people don't break level 10, which has been my experience.

I do agree that with 4e lack of customization was a huge problem, along with the splitting up of books cash-grab, lack of support, and lackluster launch.

However, I do believe that re-releasing all editions is what going to save WOTC ass, I wished they had done it 5 years earlier. Everyone has their favorite edition and they are just torrenting them now.

I also hope they do an app/Amazon style "publish your adventure" online store, it's a way to keep profits within WOTC yet still have the freedom of the OGL.
 
2013-01-26 12:09:41 PM

shortymac: In fact, I think it was one of the D&D Next panels claimed they did a survey and found out that most people never break 10th level due to time constraints, groups falling apart, etc.


That's an interesting factoid, simply because it's never been my experience. Most of my groups tend to top out around 14th level, give or take, and I know of more than a few GM's that dislike levels above 10th, simply because the shift in power dynamics gets too great. Combat tends to go from basic round-by-round attrition to "what parts of the opposition can be eliminated from participating in combat in the first round."

Maybe it's because I'm a younging (26) that I feel vancian magic is "unnatural" and "cumbersome". I suspect in 5e they are going to make it a choice. But who the hell knows, now anyway.

The original marketing for 4e felt a lot like it was appealing to a wholly different demographic that was more used to Warcraft and Everquest than the original systems. Where 3.0/3.5 was working heavily on the extant groups that remembered and enjoyed 1st and 2nd Editions, 4e felt a lot more MMO-inspired and internet biased (just from the inane cartoons that they used to advertise).

And once-per-day abilities don't work at all in a semi-real time computer world. It only makes sense that, if the marketing was focused in that direction, they'd modify that mechanic to what their demographic was comfortable with.

shortymac:
I'd argue that most people get "stuck" between levels 1 to 4 because it takes a while to level up and half the time groups dissolve due to changing circumstances.

The highest level I have ever attained is 6 I believe, then the group I was in dissolved. I'm lucky to get to level 2 actually. I remember listen to a D&D talk and they realized that most people don't break level 10, which has been my experience.


That sucks. I feel for you, as I've had groups like that in the past. Hells, even when I was living in South Korea, I was able to get a group that was more constant than that.

I do agree that with 4e lack of customization was a huge problem, along with the splitting up of books cash-grab, lack of support, and lackluster launch.

There were a lot of strange problems with the 4e launch. I happened to be on a bus with Rob Kuntz (one Gygax's inner circle) when 4e was announced, and he was talking about how the industry at large was pretty unimpressed with how it was being handled. (And the following success of Paizo's Pathfinder speaks to how a sizable faction of the customers reacted as well.)

The feeling at the time was that Hasbro wanted something a lot flashier that could tap into the wholly ridiculous online numbers of the various MMO's, rather than keep the interest of the grognards, as it were. It makes sense, from a corporate standpoint, but considering that 3.5 was, far and away, the most successful edition of D&D, they weren't going to get much improvement on that. The hobby just doesn't work that way.

However, I do believe that re-releasing all editions is what going to save WOTC ass, I wished they had done it 5 years earlier. Everyone has their favorite edition and they are just torrenting them now.

It's going to be interesting to watch. Personally, I've made it a point to get a lot of the reprints (the 1st Edition set, as well as the errata'd 3.5 set), so they've gotten that much money from me. I just wonder how many people are content to leave that particular bridge burnt.

I also hope they do an app/Amazon style "publish your adventure" online store, it's a way to keep profits within WOTC yet still have the freedom of the OGL.

Now that would be an interesting move. There's potential there, but it really doesn't seem like something that Hasbro would be interested in bothering with. They killed off the much vaunted Gleemax project before it even got any steam under it, and this would require as much, if not more, outlay of time and money.
 
Displayed 14 of 264 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report