Yeah... screw you Wizards!

[Ram Tyr]

You make a good point, but I also think that reacting against companies like Wizards/Hasbro and Microsoft is what makes the industry better and opens the door for better products. Sometimes this reaction manifests itself as "I hate M$", which I can see being annoying. At the same time if everyone just went along with everything they (MS/Wizards/Sony etc.) released and never sought out anything else, the market would stagnate and suffer.

D&D has directly benefitted from game makers that said "You know D&D is illogical and silly, I'm going to make my own game". This forced D&D to update its rules to compete/adapt to what the 'renegades' put forward.

This is the heart of the matter. Criticism is fine as long as it does not denigrate folks that enjoy playing a certain kind of game. I do not recall (though I admit I did not go back and review this thread) anyone posting that folks should simply go along with WotC. Actually, given this is a discussion of a new edition coming out where they have already stated that certain things will change, it seems out of place.

In any event, a civil discussion is welcome. When I begin to assume my preferences, my priorities are or should also be theirs...that is when the problem comes up. (Note this is not the same as explaining ones position, which is fine.) Not everyone will agree and civil discourse requires tolerance of differing viewpoints.

Later.

[Tropico]

Ugh, what is your problem here man? I am not trying to denigrate anybody.

Of course everything I post is just my opinion. Of course you're entitled to your own opinion. Jesus, that's something that is a baseline assumption when you come onto a message board. That's something that shouldn't even need to be said.

As far as trying to denigrate anything, that is totally ridiculous. Anyone who has gamed with me (which includes, by the way, several posters in this thread) can say full well that when I am gaming, be it d20 or any other system, I put all my efforts into leaving all tension behind me and focus solely on learning and on keeping a light and and atmosphere at the same time.

But I come on a messageboard, I state my opinions, I havent consciously OFFENDED anyone that I can tell, I hope that my words will be taken by normal people in a normal manner that I intend them, ie as discussion, but nooo, you just have to go and make it into a little personal battle of whatever is in your own head that noone else knows about.

Whatever man.. If you want to twist and morph my words into some kind of 'attack against gamers of the world' so you can pontificate about who-knows-what, if you want to dissect and oveanalyse every little word I write so you can have your pedantic little giggle at my inconsistencies... go right ahead with your petty little campaign, I will be over here on the other side, playing.

PS, And may I say that your supposedly 'civil' tone is just as denigrating and offensive as you say mine is, if not more. Passive-aggresiveness, condescendence and smugness is considered more unpleasant then outright honest disagreement, not less. If anyone needs modding in this thread my friend, it is you.
.
.

Edit-> Alright, you know what. You're right. I apologize. I worded my post on d20's complexity too bluntly. I have blue-collar roots, English is not my first language, I speak bluntly sometimes. Text is a difficult medium; I had hopes that people would know me enough by now that through the bluntness, they could see that I didn't really mean offense. I was wrong, and you Ramza, took offense. You took my poorly-worded posts and started waging against me in a very stealthy, very coldly-calculated way that you knew would make you look as good as possible while at the same time jabbing at me and insulting me as bad as possible. You succeeded. Awesome. I'm sorry. You win the thread. My god.

All I ask is please don't go now and post something to the tune of 'Oh look, look how he apologizes now, when before he was so sure of himself, ha-ha, he might be ready now to join me and learn from me in the elite ranks of the golden civil discoursers' or something like that. I think even you can agree that that would be a little much. Though I'm not totally sure.

[Foen]

Peace, we're all cool here.

[Tropico]

Peace, we're all cool here.

I'm cool now. I said I was sorry and, though I was still ticked off at Ramza, I meant it.

I sincerely apologize to anyone who was offended by any of my posts in this thread, and in the entire forum since I've been here (because I know these aren't the first 'blunt' posts I've made), and I assure everyone that from now on, I will think it over very carefully before I add my point of view to any discussion.

Overall I think it's best to just let it lie and move on.


Edit-> Just FYI for moderators or anyone who might care, I've been trying to settle this amicably with little Ramza through PMs since it happened, and have been soundly ignored (even though his profile has shown him being active every day). So much for that 'civil discourse' Just goes to show: talking about why people should do something and actually doing it are two completely different things.

[scytale2]

I apologise in advance for not reading the thread completely, but I will simply say that D&D NEEDS a revamp.

It is a sprawling mass that does its level best to be balanced and create enjoyment and, against all the odds, usually succeeds.

However, certain things which have come through with the enormously creative 3.5 were mishandled:

a) No. of attacks - this creates lots of complexity, with bundles of pluses and minuses, which even Maths graduates struggle with. This is compounded by making 2-weapon fighting far too easy and attractive.

b) Attacks of opportunity - bingo, we have even more attacks and few people know every nuance of when an AOO is appropriate. Ditch them imho and replace with something far simpler.

c) Spells - well here I think 3.5 does a good job. Part of the problem was the massive revamp between 3.0 and 3.5, so fingers crossed 4.0 will sort this out.

d) Feats - these are a nightmare at the moment and need major simplification, whilst still maintaining choice. Feats are not balanced properly either. For instance "Cleave" comes in far too early.

It's a shame that everything will have to be redone, with new Monster Manuals etc. I doubt the modules will need much adjustment because even 2nd ed stuff can be run quite easily with 3.5.

It's likely to be a moneyspinner for Wizards, but then it will be such because of the whole beauty of the genre, which they chose to invest in not so long ago. Just because it hits our collective pockets does not mean there is a need to revamp.

Regarding other simpler systems. Well I don't go a bundle on these unless you're with great roleplayers. I like "learning" the data in D&D and I very much like the creative aspects of different prestige classes and the RP direction given with skills and feats, so thumbs up really.

I hope I didn't reopen up any wounds

[Tailz Silver Paws]

Could WOTC be making D&D too simple?

[richvalle]

Depends on your tastes I think. No matter what they do they will make some people happy and upset some others.

I think it does get too crunchy at high levels with all the attacks, buffs and potential modifiers. Others like that kind of thing.

rv

[NymTevlyn]

Could WOTC be making D&D too simple?

https://www.mimgames.com/window/

Games don't get much simpler than that one. I think some things in D&D could be slimmed down, but a whole new edition is just the wrong way to go about it. They should've packed a supplemental ruleset of optional stuff. Constantly revising the game makes me less eager to buy anything but the core book.

[Andugus]

To paraphrase Monte Cook, "What is good for WoTC is good for the rest of the gaming community." It is probably irrelevant which system any one of us chooses to use. If the gaming community as a whole grows there will be those that find this method of online gaming appealing.

I wish WoTC the very best of success so that we as a community might become a viable alternative to those that will not have the system performance or prefer a more tabletop experience; which is exactly what a well run FG2 game emulates I think.

[Sgain]

I'm still going to use SW for my games, but I'm sure that WoTC will come up with tons of new and interesting game aids for 4e and I'll check out those with great interest. As to the system itself, after D&D, AD&D, 2e and playing 3.5 for about a year I won't ever go back to a d20 based and class/level based game. I just don't enjoy DM'ing or playing systems where there are so many 'special' rules that countermand nearly every other rule in the game and cause tons of grief for DM's and players alike, endless 'addendums' to the system, and every single adventure seemed to bring in a new prestige classes and feats to add to the confusion. Its a rules lawyer game system, and I just don't have the time for it.

I admire WoTC for keeping gaming alive and spending so much time and effort on making it more mainstream, but by the same token, I wish that they had dumped d20 back with 2e and challenged gamers with a more exciting gaming system rather than munchkin-like 'epic' levels and the like. Then again, I'm sure a host of players love epic level games and its for that reason they play roleplaying games.

Lets just wait and see how it affects the gaming market and peoples interest. I already know that their commercials are a great laugh and brought back tons of memories.