Something about 4E

[ImaginaryLogic]

just wanted to say that imo, wotc decided they couldn't compete with 3.5. I mean, there really aren't any fundamental flaws (the sort appropriate to an edition change) that you could fix. I cant think of any at least. plus, smaller problems are easily rectified by house rules. so wotc really had to do something like this in order to make a new edition (which they were going to do no matter what to sell books, campaigns, etc). but at least they can change it back again to sell even more stuff.

[Krag]

Dude, if your interested go look it up yourself. Originally its working title was "magic sword" then it was retooled to be D&D & it was renamed Asmodeus or something similiar. Go look it up, its on both the WotC site & on the Hasbro mailing list (& if you are going to go onto the Hasbro mailing list, you should probably read "Toy Wars" first so any of it makes sense).

I was interested to learn if you are trolling or not. Your "go make your own research" comment washed the last traces of doubt I still had.

[Krag]

note to self, ]giving someone source material to read is trolling. Good to know. I'm not going to go back through the back issues of hasbro newsletters for you & then request a re-emailed copy for you. Do it your self, i'm not your secretary: seriously dude, do you expect everything else you want on a silver platter (i tell you, this forum is full of people incapable of using google).

Do you want the interview with gleemax staff too, where they said that WotC no longer cared about previous older generations of D&D fans? Now that would be trolling

-M

Wait, wait, wait.
Source material to read is what you have been asked for. However all you do is repeating wild claims and weird accusations without providing anything. Yes, this is called trolling.

[Uska]

they are putting out esstential books but claim its not 4.5 but my friend who owns a gameshop says his distrubtior told him they can't order they older books for 4E anymore hmmmm

[sainy_matthew]

they are putting out esstential books but claim its not 4.5 but my friend who owns a gameshop says his distrubtior told him they can't order they older books for 4E anymore hmmmm

Essential books. Yeah totally not 4.5. I actually read the editorial for the Essential Classess stuff & i loved how the "design principle" is essentially the exact opposite of 4E original release design principle. I think WotC has had flagging numbers over the last fiscal quarter (Heck its Star Wars Saga line was up this quarter). Heck look at the ennie awards nomination listing (chance to vote close 25th at midnight so go vote now), theres only 2 4E books on the entire list & ones in the "best cartography" section which is the "best lighting & sound" section of the ennie awards.

Problem with an edition war like the DnD edition war is that you lose half your market (a conservative guess, but i've been hearing a lot of disinterest even from people who initially embraced the new edition). Then you target a part of the gamer market known for jumping from one shiny thing to the next shiny thing (lets call them your "social networking demographic") & you're in for financial strife (& considering Hasbro's draconian marketing division thats not good).

All of this is why i'm not suprised that WotC is scrambling to fix the percieved problems that fans having been complaining about (the funny thing is the things 4E fans are complaing about, are the same problems the 3.5 fans found & complained about when the game first came out).

-M

[RictrasShard]

Dude, if your interested go look it up yourself. Originally its working title was "magic sword" then it was retooled to be D&D & it was renamed Asmodeus or something similiar. Go look it up, its on both the WotC site & on the Hasbro mailing list (& if you are going to go onto the Hasbro mailing list, you should probably read "Toy Wars" first so any of it makes sense).

I looked it up. I found nothing remotely similar to what you claim. Between this and your refusal to back up your statement, it is obvious that your are making this up.

they are putting out esstential books but claim its not 4.5 but my friend who owns a gameshop says his distrubtior told him they can't order they older books for 4E anymore hmmmm

Odd, then, that every gamestore in my province can still order the older 4E books.

[sainy_matthew]

Monte Cook also had a lot to say about 4E as well. He didn't come out and say he hated it or anything, but he did have an interesting view on how WotC dropped the ball on its marketing & the timing of its release.

[RictrasShard]

Monte Cook also had a lot to say about 4E as well. He didn't come out and say he hated it or anything, but he did have an interesting view on how WotC dropped the ball on its marketing & the timing of its release.

So?

And as for the comment you edited out, yeah, basically. If there is no evidence of it online, including the place where you stated it could be found, and you refuse to back up your claim, it likely doesn't exist.

[Chai]

Problem with an edition war like the DnD edition war is that you lose half your market (a conservative guess, but i've been hearing a lot of disinterest even from people who initially embraced the new edition). Then you target a part of the gamer market known for jumping from one shiny thing to the next shiny thing (lets call them your "social networking demographic") & you're in for financial strife (& considering Hasbro's draconian marketing division thats not good).

Yes. Instead of the long term gamers they are marketing to the low attention span least common denominator crowd. This is what they get. In a simple quantity based arguement, the current MMO crowd has the head count, and they thought they could go there with a book version. The other line of thinking was that TSR stuck to their guns with the old school crowd, failed in making a profit, so WOTC should reach out to the new gamers who learned about RPGs by playing MMOs so the same will not happen. Bringing in new blood is fine and dandy, but when the new blood doesnt bite on the long term, those numbers are just a short term pad. They look good to the yes men now, but later on...

All of this is why i'm not suprised that WotC is scrambling to fix the percieved problems that fans having been complaining about (the funny thing is the things 4E fans are complaing about, are the same problems the 3.5 fans found & complained about when the game first came out).

-M

Ironic isnt it. When I brought this kind of stuff up a few years ago, me and mine were branded haters who dont understand the new face of gaming. Nowdays those very people are complaining about the same stuff we were 4 short years ago when we got our eyes on 4e for the first time. Those of us who were experienced enough could simply read the rulesets and predict there would be issues, and many of those issues were actually resolved in EARLIER editions of the game. This is the first time a new edition came out and actually reintroduced older issues, due to trying to make the game less complex.

Its a catch 22 scenario. People complain that the game is too complex, but without that complexity, even more issues arise, including more situationally broken scenarios. Then they complain about that, and those of us with more experience have to then point out that this stuff didnt happen in earlier editions to this degree. The complexity was actually there to resolve the issues that used to be complained about in the past, many of which are the same issues 4e DMs and REFs are complaining about now.

[sainy_matthew]

Its a catch 22 scenario. People complain that the game is too complex, but without that complexity, even more issues arise, including more situationally broken scenarios. Then they complain about that, and those of us with more experience have to then point out that this stuff didnt happen in earlier editions to this degree. The complexity was actually there to resolve the issues that used to be complained about in the past, many of which are the same issues 4e DMs and REFs are complaining about now.

Yet for many old school gamers its the complexity that have us coming back for more. But on the topic of why WotC is making simple design mistake recently, i'll hand you over to a article by monte cook on whats happened at WotC that may shine some light on the situation.

http://www.rpgblog2.com/2008/12/mont...c-layoffs.html

-M

[timberhick]

Why would anyone want to listen to monte for?

[Chai]

Yet for many old school gamers its the complexity that have us coming back for more. But on the topic of why WotC is making simple design mistake recently, i'll hand you over to a article by monte cook on whats happened at WotC that may shine some light on the situation.

http://www.rpgblog2.com/2008/12/mont...c-layoffs.html

-M

Yeap exactly. The complexity allows them to build on a game and not make the same mistakes that were already resolved in the past.

The sad fact is however, that those of us who love that complexity dont have the numbers, the MMOs do. So in order to generate numbers, WOTC designed a game that mimics an MMO on paper. This fails for many of the same reasons trying to play an MMO by literal pen and paper rules fails. The mechanics simply dont translate 100% well and good when applied to a new medium.

And now, due to simplification, I find myself having to make a house rule here and there for things that already were resolved as far back as 2.0e.

[timberhick]

I never saw the complexity in 3e that you all seem to. I see multiple subsystems that are supposedly supposed to work together in one system and never came close to doing so.

Looking over all the spells some nearly thousand or so and there is, what, less than 60-70 that are actually 'useful'. Just like feats and classes and races. It is not complexity that people are in love with, but system mastery, like monte said was the basis for the edition.

If the Dm does not have complete system mastery than some of the sub-systems end up feeling 'overpowered' until the group masters that particular sub-system and realizes it is not and is in reality underpowered, than the group goes back to the standard sets.

By and large the biggest problem, I think, people have with 4e is that the 'sub-systems' are gone and now everyone uses the same system to play. That is what they cannot handle and do not like.

[Corebreach]

note to self, giving someone source material to read is trolling. Good to know. I'm not going to go back through the back issues of hasbro newsletters for you & then request a re-emailed copy for you. Do it your self, i'm not your secretary: seriously dude, do you expect everything else you want on a silver platter (i tell you, this forum is full of people incapable of using google).

I attempted Google, Yahoo, and Bing searches on "Magic Sword" + Hasbro and got nothing off any official source or mailing list archives. I do find two comments phrased almost identical to your post (one on Youtube, one on a blog), but those threads had no references either. I also tried WotC's forums, but their search function is too primitive to do "and" or phrase searches as far as I can tell.

I could not find a mailing list signup or archive, or general forum, on Hasbro's site.

After spending over half an hour on this, I believe I've made a good-faith attempt to locate this information myself. At least provide a rough date or archive volume number.