StarDestroyer.Net BBS

I would have bought and played tweaking of 3.5e and do use a hybridized version of Pathfinder and 3.5e currently. I think the issue with 4e is it doesn't feel like any other form of D&D that had come before it. It had none of the character that made those systems feel related and it made no attempt at allowing characters to transition from one version to the next. What would the incentive have been to kill a campaign and move to a product so different it might as well not bear the D&D name?

If I wanted something not D&D I already had plenty of choices. If I wanted a tactical war game I could pick one of those up as well. If I want something that feels like D&D I now have to support a different company. WOTC obviously missed this very simple fact.

S.L.Acker wrote:I would have bought and played tweaking of 3.5e and do use a hybridized version of Pathfinder and 3.5e currently. I think the issue with 4e is it doesn't feel like any other form of D&D that had come before it. It had none of the character that made those systems feel related and it made no attempt at allowing characters to transition from one version to the next. What would the incentive have been to kill a campaign and move to a product so different it might as well not bear the D&D name?

If I wanted something not D&D I already had plenty of choices. If I wanted a tactical war game I could pick one of those up as well. If I want something that feels like D&D I now have to support a different company. WOTC obviously missed this very simple fact.

Why doesn't it feel like D&D? It bears far more resemblance to 3.5 than 3.5 does to 1e or 0e, to be blunt.

A madman wrote:

So you use Wikipedia as a reliable source, linked to Frank Trollman's hall of douchebags, and ignored literally everything I said? But I want to know how you figured out my one weakness, namely revealing that I participate on more than one webforum. I will have answers, one way or another, and if necessary I will pretend that you were obsessively googling my name and sighing like some sort of moe-BL abomination, which fits you quite nicely, if I do say so myself. But no, this was part of my duties as Supreme Life President and COO of the Anti-Zinegata Society, which consists of all people in their right mind plus your parents.

PS: Without knowing how the 1.5 million, 6 million, or 24 million were reached, those numbers are useless and your results are also useless. Similarly, ICv2 is also pretty useless because it uses a non-representative sample. The correct answer to a situation where you have inadequate data is not to pretend that that data is fine, it's to reserve judgment.

Bakustra wrote:

S.L.Acker wrote:I would have bought and played tweaking of 3.5e and do use a hybridized version of Pathfinder and 3.5e currently. I think the issue with 4e is it doesn't feel like any other form of D&D that had come before it. It had none of the character that made those systems feel related and it made no attempt at allowing characters to transition from one version to the next. What would the incentive have been to kill a campaign and move to a product so different it might as well not bear the D&D name?

If I wanted something not D&D I already had plenty of choices. If I wanted a tactical war game I could pick one of those up as well. If I want something that feels like D&D I now have to support a different company. WOTC obviously missed this very simple fact.

Why doesn't it feel like D&D? It bears far more resemblance to 3.5 than 3.5 does to 1e or 0e, to be blunt.

I started playing in 3.0 and have played a few sessions in 2e, read the rules to it pretty well besides. The transition back and forth is a step, but not a large one and it was made easier by an actual transition guide. The casting system is much the same, and by the end of 2e - at least from what I hear - there were some significant steps towards the way 3.0 was written.

No Bakustra, your one weakness is that it's become blatantly obvious that you're a troll, who is just trolling these boards (and bragging about it in other boards) because you want to feel big and meaningful instead of being a sick little twisted fuck that you are.

And also because you fantasize about raping dogs and have no one to project your own sick feelings to but me.

So you use Wikipedia as a reliable source, linked to Frank Trollman's hall of douchebags

Okay, I'm going to say that I am going to demand you retract your bullshit argument, because you're outright lying now.

My sources ain't wikipedia or Frank Trollman. My source is Wizards of the Coast.

The 6 million figure cited in wikipedia (if you followed the link) leads to an article by one Peter Svensson:

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/gaming/200 ... gons_N.htm

Money quote:

D&D had about six million players worldwide last year, according to a survey by Wizards

Moreover, it ain't Frank Trollman who gave the 1.5 million figure. I linked The Gaming Den, but that was a thread were one member who attended the WoTC GAMA seminar showed pictures of their slides.

So, to repeat:

6 million -> Not a wikipedia fabrication, but a cited figure from a news article based on a WoTC survey
1.5 million -> Not a Frank Trollman fabrication, but a figure coming from WoTC's own seminar at GAMA

So I want an admission that you're a fucking retard that tried to lie about the veracity of my sources. A quick reading of the links I provided (ESPECIALLY The Gaming Den one) would show that the ultimate source of this data is actually Wizards of the Coast. You did not even bother to take a look and just started trolling and launching ad-hominems.

Bakustra wrote:PS: Without knowing how the 1.5 million, 6 million, or 24 million were reached, those numbers are useless and your results are also useless.

No, this is you needing to make another admission that you are a retard. You owe me a retraction for lying about my sources. You owe a second retraction for your insane attempt to reject data because "I don't know how they did the survey!"

The source of both the 6 million and 1.5 million figure is the ultimately same - Wizards of the Coast. The company that publishes the game. Why would a company publish figures saying their player base decreased after releasing a new product? Are companies now in the habit of hiding success in favor of pretending that they failed?

The reality is both figures are likely accurate (albeit maybe a bit inflated - the marketing head admitted as much), so we can in fact use these figures as a baseline to judge the drop in player base. D&D had about 4 times more people who played during the 3.X period than in the 4E period. Ergo, it is pretty much irrefutable fact that 4E failed to convert them and that a majority did not switch.

And all anectodal data support this. Heck, you are seriously about the ONLY person to play 4E regularly in that survey thread Slacker made, as opposed to very many other people who played 3.X or its derivatives.

You have made two serious lies and I am demanding a retraction for both of them. This debate is over.