| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Lord Rad |
Posted - 23 Mar 2004 : 15:30:04
Stumbled upon something over at ENWorld, which ultimately links to a post over at Skullport (need I say more  )
quote:
Dungeons & Dragons 4th Edition Announced!
Reported by Sylvus Moonbow on February 18, 2004
Do you really care anymore? 3rd Edition brought a lot of change to the table and a good one too. 3.5 Edition made you wonder what in the world WotC were doing.
Well, here's one for you to really get your teeth around. Do you think the 3.5 Edition rule changes could have been held back until 4th Edition? A question many are asking themselves with this D&D Announcement.
HASBRO TO RELEASE FOURTH EDITION OF POPULAR D&D GAME IN FALL 2006
Associated Press -- In a move designed to cement their already formidable presence in the role-playing game market, Hasbro subsidiary
Wizards of the Coast is planning to release a fourth edition of its popular Dungeons & Dragons (TM) game in fall 2006. The move is seen as somewhat controversial by industry insiders since Wizards of the Coast (WotC) has just released a revision to the third edition of the D&D game, commonly referred to as "version 3.5".
"It comes as a bit of surprise to some of our fans, perhaps," said D&D
designer Jonathan Tweet, "but a fourth edition of D&D is the logical progression of the game's evolution. To help support our fans who have bought the 3.5 core books we're going to be offering a 15% trade-in deal for the new fourth edition core books. We're excited about the work being done for the fourth edition and now that 3.5 is out it's time to start planning for the future. We're going to be doing things in this new game that no one has ever dared do in an RPG."
Tweet offered no further comment, but stressed that the fourth edition--officially titled "Dungeons & Dragons Millenium Edition"--would be a "substantial rethinking" of the D&D brand. Hasbro's stock jumped five points after the exciting announcement.
1. Release date has been set at Fall 2006, though some reports have
(incorrectly) reported Fall 2005.
2. D&D 4th edition will mark the return of the boxed set. The game wll be sold in both "Starter Set" and "Master Set" editions. The "Starter Set" will be a boxed set which will include the 4th edition Player's Handbook (hardcover), several maps and counters (WotC
insiders are refusing to give details about these, but claim that they will be an integrated part of gameplay, not just used for combat
resolution), and 10 miniatures. The "Master Set" ("master" referring to Dungeon Master) includes all of the above plus the Dungeon Master's Guide and the Monster Manual. Dice will not be included in either set.
3. A report in the Los Angeles Times stating that the new game will be officially called "Dungeons & Dragons Millenium Edition" has proven
unfounded. At this time the game is simply being referred to by WotC as "D&D 4th Edition".
4. The game will make extensive use of miniatures and counters; unlike
previous editions their use will not be optional. Interestingly, the game will also use various systems for task resolution in addition to die rolls. No details on what kind of systems, but some are speculating a tarot card deck will be included with the Master Set. This is, however, unfounded at this point in time.
5. New core classes [not prestige classes] include Alchemist, Sage, and Magician. No word on which, if any, classes from 3/3.5 will be dropped. When asked how "Magician" differs from Wizard/Sorcerer, WotC insiders smiled slyly but had no reply.
6. The game will use a 1.5" scale for its combat grid and all miniatures released for the game will use this new scale.
Get a sense of humor or rent one if you don't have one.
Obviously a prank from the poster, although I think using Jonathan Tweet's name is a bit off.
Still, id welcome back boxed sets if nothing else 
Dont throw away your 3/3.5 rulebooks just yet anyway |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Mournblade |
Posted - 02 Feb 2009 : 14:33:17
Unfortunately for me, my voice which is anti $e was never heard because I gave it a chance. If I had known I would never have bought the books and got it all off of pirate sites.
So as far as WOTC knows I am perfectly happy with the $e rules set and the new world.
I thought about selling my stuff on EBAY to cancel my vote but I actually want to keep the rules set, I might revisit it with Dark Sun. but the FR...
I would sell that to another person to cancel my vote so to speak.
|
| Kiaransalyn |
Posted - 02 Feb 2009 : 10:01:22
quote:
Originally posted by ranger_of_the_unicorn_run
Honestly, I almost got caught up into 4e because it sounded new and exciting when I first heard about it, but the more I heard about it, the more I realized that it was not a good kind of new.
From time to time, I've found myself considering it too. From what I've heard about Healing Surges, Second Winds and the way that hit-points are being treated it sounds like they are moving towards stamina not wounds. To explain a bit further, in earlier editions, hit points were akin to taking wounds, but it seems that now they are more a measure of how long you can keep fighting and dealing damage. It's an approach I've adopted for my home-brew role-playing system and it reminds me of the Fighting Fantasy books.
But then I recall buying the three core books for 3.5 and realising that I'd basically bought the same books. I felt ripped-off and given the short amount of time between 3.5 and the latest edition, it'll feel like a rip-off again. |
| ranger_of_the_unicorn_run |
Posted - 02 Feb 2009 : 03:47:25
quote:
Originally posted by sneakypetev
You guys have stated my opinion better than I could have, but I would like to add that WoTC could have made more profit,(IMO), by making 4E a seperate game from D&D 3.5. Like a "D&D Basic", lighter on rules, but more use of minis. And they could have continued with or improved upon 3.5. and left the Realms alone.This way they could keep the old fans and introduced a younger/newer group to D&D. And fans of the FR novels would not have had to deal with the huge changes.
I don't know how much money they would have made off of calling it D&D Basic, but there certainly are better ways that they could have handled it. Ultimately, though, I think they were looking for a way to reboot it because it means another round of initial sales. Initial sales are generally better because people are usually more willing to buy something new, especially if they didn't like the old thing, but are willing to give a new thing a try. WotC probably thought that they could bring in new customers by changing it enough to get people who didn't like it so much before into it, while they thought that their old customers would follow brand loyalty. Honestly, I almost got caught up into 4e because it sounded new and exciting when I first heard about it, but the more I heard about it, the more I realized that it was not a good kind of new. |
| sneakypetev |
Posted - 02 Feb 2009 : 00:14:47
quote:
Originally posted by Kiaransalyn
quote:
Originally posted by ErskineF
They've shown us very clearly just how much they value our investment in their product. They couldn't put themselves into our shoes for two seconds and think, "Here's a guy with a wife, a family, a mortgage, doctor's bills... He's spent at least a couple thousand dollars on our products in the past. How is he going to react if we ask him to nullify that investment by switching to a new edition in a completely revised campaign setting?" Do the guys who make the decisions think we're all living in our mother's basement, with nothing to do with our Jiffy-Mart paychecks but spend it on the latest game stuff?
If they had stayed with third edition, and come out with a new setting, call it FR1470, they could have filled those hundred years with whatever they wanted to, and fans would have bought it. I know FR fans--they can't help themselves. Combining the two, though, was a total deal breaker. I think they're going to find that out the hard way.
I second all that you've said.
If $E had been presented as an evolution and the Realms had been seen to have been updated (in terms of showing the conclusions of story-lines and the re-drawing of political boundaries) then they could have prevented a lot of acrimony. Instead, its out with the old and in with the new. Some who like the older versions of the Realms will look at the newest edition and see it as fun challenge. Good for them.  However, I look at my bookshelves and think what use are these source-books now. Why should I stop my 18 month old daughter scribbling in the Grand History of the Realms or the 3rd Edition Campaign Guide when they are no longer relevant?
To return to the "businesses have to make money" argument. No-one disputes that. But do they have to make money in such a cack-handed way? Why annoy loyal customers for the sake of new customers? Why swap one set of customers for another? Why not build on what you have and attract more customers?
I could go on asking questions but it's a pointless exercise. The decisions have been made, and nothing I say or do (or nothing that I said and did) will be heard. I suppose this post is merely a form of therapy. Still, at least my daughter has lots of colouring paper now - even if it is very expensive.
Edited for spelling.
You guys have stated my opinion better than I could have, but I would like to add that WoTC could have made more profit,(IMO), by making 4E a seperate game from D&D 3.5. Like a "D&D Basic", lighter on rules, but more use of minis. And they could have continued with or improved upon 3.5. and left the Realms alone.This way they could keep the old fans and introduced a younger/newer group to D&D. And fans of the FR novels would not have had to deal with the huge changes. |
| ErskineF |
Posted - 01 Feb 2009 : 23:18:02
quote:
Originally posted by Nerfed2Hell
So... I'm not the only one who remembers the New Coke fiasco, eh?
No, and that's a great analogy. Let's hope it has the same happy ending. FR-Classic, anyone? 
|
| Nerfed2Hell |
Posted - 01 Feb 2009 : 21:46:59
quote:
Originally posted by ErskineF
quote:
Originally posted by Matt James
I've kept the frame of mind that this is a business first, and fantasy world second.
I'd be the last person to disagree with that. Businessmen don't automatically know what's in their best interests though. They're human like the rest of us, and sometimes their calculations are way off. I think this will turn out to be one of those times.
So... I'm not the only one who remembers the New Coke fiasco, eh? |
| Kiaransalyn |
Posted - 01 Feb 2009 : 15:15:00
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Intro'ing the Shattered Realms as a new setting would have done so much better. They would have had the new customers, and with it being a new setting, they'd have gotten a lot of the old customers, too. Instead, they opted to make us feel that all of our old lore was now useless.
As you suggested, they could have called the new setting Shadow Toril, or my own Counter Toril suggestion. There were a number of ways they could have brought in the new rule-set that could attract new customers and retained their current ones too.
Having a duplicate world where history, geography and religion is a little different could have set a fascinating novel series too.
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
They counted on us being blindly loyal to the brand, and now (I hope) they're realizing that was a mistake.
Brand loyalty is mostly, in my opinion, due to customers not seeing a reason to change. Rather ironic. |
| Brimstone |
Posted - 01 Feb 2009 : 15:02:26
Reminds me of the Question I was asking around July/August/September. Would this be happening if the old TSR crew still worked for WotC? I wonder what Steven Schend and Krash would have come up with.
BRIMSTONE |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 01 Feb 2009 : 14:56:38
quote:
Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart
quote:
Originally posted by ErskineF
They've shown us very clearly just how much they value our investment in their product. They couldn't put themselves into our shoes for two seconds and think, "Here's a guy with a wife, a family, a mortgage, doctor's bills... He's spent at least a couple thousand dollars on our products in the past. How is he going to react if we ask him to nullify that investment by switching to a new edition in a completely revised campaign setting?" Do the guys who make the decisions think we're all living in our mother's basement, with nothing to do with our Jiffy-Mart paychecks but spend it on the latest game stuff?
This is true. But there were also very loud (although not as numerous) complaints on their own forums that the Realms needed changing. Even though, IMO, these complainers were in the minority, WotC took a look at the feedback from the forums and acted on it. "Squeaky wheel gets the grease"-type of thing.
The Realms have been changing for a while. Change doesn't have to be catastrophic...
I've come up with my own plot that includes Mystra's murder, takes out a number of the Chosen, and replaces her. And my plot does not involved anything as dramatic as magic going awry during the ToT.
I've also been working on a way to intro the dragonborn (under another name). I've got that mostly worked out, save for some details.
Both of my ideas are non-catastrophic, and both of them actually draw on existing lore, at least in part -- that was very important to me.
I did this mostly as an exercise, but to me it proves that they could have made some of the desired changes without blowing up everything or doing a timejump.
And their excuses for why the timejump was necessary means that if the same team is in charge when 5E comes out, they'll feel obligated to blow it up again. |
| Brimstone |
Posted - 01 Feb 2009 : 14:53:23
-Aint that the Truth Ashe. I was complining about somethings at work and guess what happens. I get a project. Truely the squeaky wheel gets the grease. 
BRIMSTONE |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 01 Feb 2009 : 14:49:33
quote:
Originally posted by Kiaransalyn
Why annoy loyal customers for the sake of new customers? Why swap one set of customers for another? Why not build on what you have and attract more customers?
This is my biggest complaint, too. I understand and quite agree with wanting to attract new customers. But it seems counter-productive to me to throw away a lot of dedicated customers in favor of customers that are going to buy a handful of products and then move on to something different.
Intro'ing the Shattered Realms as a new setting would have done so much better. They would have had the new customers, and with it being a new setting, they'd have gotten a lot of the old customers, too. Instead, they opted to make us feel that all of our old lore was now useless. They counted on us being blindly loyal to the brand, and now (I hope) they're realizing that was a mistake.
It seems to me that this is a reflection of the modern business world: don't worry about making a buck tomorrow, make a buck now. And if making a buck now prevents making a buck tomorrow, oh well, we'll worry about that then. |
| Ashe Ravenheart |
Posted - 01 Feb 2009 : 14:44:33
quote:
Originally posted by ErskineF
They've shown us very clearly just how much they value our investment in their product. They couldn't put themselves into our shoes for two seconds and think, "Here's a guy with a wife, a family, a mortgage, doctor's bills... He's spent at least a couple thousand dollars on our products in the past. How is he going to react if we ask him to nullify that investment by switching to a new edition in a completely revised campaign setting?" Do the guys who make the decisions think we're all living in our mother's basement, with nothing to do with our Jiffy-Mart paychecks but spend it on the latest game stuff?
This is true. But there were also very loud (although not as numerous) complaints on their own forums that the Realms needed changing. Even though, IMO, these complainers were in the minority, WotC took a look at the feedback from the forums and acted on it. "Squeaky wheel gets the grease"-type of thing. |
| Kiaransalyn |
Posted - 01 Feb 2009 : 10:26:24
quote:
Originally posted by ErskineF
They've shown us very clearly just how much they value our investment in their product. They couldn't put themselves into our shoes for two seconds and think, "Here's a guy with a wife, a family, a mortgage, doctor's bills... He's spent at least a couple thousand dollars on our products in the past. How is he going to react if we ask him to nullify that investment by switching to a new edition in a completely revised campaign setting?" Do the guys who make the decisions think we're all living in our mother's basement, with nothing to do with our Jiffy-Mart paychecks but spend it on the latest game stuff?
If they had stayed with third edition, and come out with a new setting, call it FR1470, they could have filled those hundred years with whatever they wanted to, and fans would have bought it. I know FR fans--they can't help themselves. Combining the two, though, was a total deal breaker. I think they're going to find that out the hard way.
I second all that you've said.
If $E had been presented as an evolution and the Realms had been seen to have been updated (in terms of showing the conclusions of story-lines and the re-drawing of political boundaries) then they could have prevented a lot of acrimony. Instead, its out with the old and in with the new. Some who like the older versions of the Realms will look at the newest edition and see it as fun challenge. Good for them. However, I look at my bookshelves and think what use are these source-books now. Why should I stop my 18 month old daughter scribbling in the Grand History of the Realms or the 3rd Edition Campaign Guide when they are no longer relevant?
To return to the "businesses have to make money" argument. No-one disputes that. But do they have to make money in such a cack-handed way? Why annoy loyal customers for the sake of new customers? Why swap one set of customers for another? Why not build on what you have and attract more customers?
I could go on asking questions but it's a pointless exercise. The decisions have been made, and nothing I say or do (or nothing that I said and did) will be heard. I suppose this post is merely a form of therapy. Still, at least my daughter has lots of colouring paper now - even if it is very expensive.
Edited for spelling. |
| ErskineF |
Posted - 01 Feb 2009 : 06:02:48
quote:
Originally posted by Matt James
I've kept the frame of mind that this is a business first, and fantasy world second.
I'd be the last person to disagree with that. Businessmen don't automatically know what's in their best interests though. They're human like the rest of us, and sometimes their calculations are way off. I think this will turn out to be one of those times.
There was a lot of kicking when FR3 came out, but by not using an RSE to introduce the changes they were able to tell people, "Don't worry. Nothing's changed except the rules behind the scenes. All your FR2 books are still useable." And it was true, because FR2 source books were very heavy on lore, and very light on stat blocks and rules-stuff.
That's not true of FR3 though. If you take out the feats, spells, and PrCs, what you mostly have left is a rehash of stuff that was already printed in FR2. To say that there's maybe 5-10% new lore in the books would be generous. Even if they weren't making that little bit of lore obsolete by advancing the timeline forward 100 yrs, by ditching the rule system they've made all of the FR3 books worthless. That means they've created a situation in which their hardcore, long-time fans can't afford to buy into the new system. The more of our money we've given them in the past, the less likely we are to follow them into the future. Is that smart?
They've shown us very clearly just how much they value our investment in their product. They couldn't put themselves into our shoes for two seconds and think, "Here's a guy with a wife, a family, a mortgage, doctor's bills... He's spent at least a couple thousand dollars on our products in the past. How is he going to react if we ask him to nullify that investment by switching to a new edition in a completely revised campaign setting?" Do the guys who make the decisions think we're all living in our mother's basement, with nothing to do with our Jiffy-Mart paychecks but spend it on the latest game stuff?
If they had stayed with third edition, and come out with a new setting, call it FR1470, they could have filled those hundred years with whatever they wanted to, and fans would have bought it. I know FR fans--they can't help themselves. Combining the two, though, was a total deal breaker. I think they're going to find that out the hard way.
|
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 31 Jan 2009 : 23:23:43
quote:
Originally posted by Nerfed2Hell
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
No, what dilutes the sales is when you flood the market with 8001 other "core" books from one company. What dilutes sales is not giving the customers what they want.
And, assuming 4e doesn't flop for losing a significant portion of hardcore 3e players, you don't think they won't keep adding sourcebooks to 4e to get themselves into the same situation? The way I see it, they started out with the business model to do so by excluding content that from the PHB that players wanted right from the start but seem willing to wait for.
I didn't say that.... They did it with 2E and 3.x, so of course they'll oversaturate the market with 4E. The only question is how long its going to take before sales fall off from this doing that... And considering the number of folks that are refusing to touch 4E, I think we'll see 5E in 5 years or less time. Maybe closer to 3. |
| Matt James |
Posted - 31 Jan 2009 : 18:47:53
quote:
Originally posted by ErskineF
quote:
Originally posted by Matt James
I think that when there are any changes to a game system, you will always leave people behind. The key is bringing in new business and inspiring new (and often younger) crowds.
But why does that require a new edition? Why can't they simply promote the product better? I might be wrong, but it appears to me that the only places they advertise are bookstores and gaming magazines. So bringing out a new edition lets them put up a bigger display in the bookstore, and that attracts more interest. Why not look for more direct ways to advertise to their target audience?
Well, I am not privy to their business intelligence information. But, I am sure they saw something where they thought they could increase their sales, etc...
As it relates to the new edition, I have no major issues with it. I think it is fun to play and I enjoy the group tactics. As for the flavor of storyline, especially as it relates to FR, I believe they knew there was going to be backlash from it (i.e. spellplague). I think it was a calculated risk and that whether we like it or not, it is here to stay. This is my pragmatic view on the situation, I am in no way advocating or condoning what they did as I've kept the frame of mind that this is a business first, and fantasy world second.
Edit: Spelling |
| ErskineF |
Posted - 31 Jan 2009 : 18:06:01
quote:
Originally posted by Matt James
I think that when there are any changes to a game system, you will always leave people behind. The key is bringing in new business and inspiring new (and often younger) crowds.
But why does that require a new edition? Why can't they simply promote the product better? I might be wrong, but it appears to me that the only places they advertise are bookstores and gaming magazines. So bringing out a new edition lets them put up a bigger display in the bookstore, and that attracts more interest. Why not look for more direct ways to advertise to their target audience?
|
| Zanan |
Posted - 31 Jan 2009 : 17:42:37
Well, most gamers I know have not turned 4E, simply because they have spent lots of money on 3,x material and are quite settled in their respective settings, be it the FR or Eberron. And AFAIK most of these gamers are not exactly 100% against 4E as such, but what "it" did to the FR. So they not just annoyed the 3,xE community, but large parts of the FR community too, whether 1E, AD&A or 3,xE. We'll have to see what will happen to Eberron later this year. |
| Matt James |
Posted - 31 Jan 2009 : 17:19:01
I've noticed an increase in local game-day attendance with people who have never played D&D before. As an example, where 1-3 tables would have existed in our local gaming shop before on any given game-day. Now, 3-5 have been persistent since the release of 4E. I still see 3.X tables being played from time to time and even the random AD&D table.
I think that when there are any changes to a game system, you will always leave people behind. The key is bringing in new business and inspiring new (and often younger) crowds.
Heck, I still know a few hardcore 2E players that think 3E+ is horrid and will refuse to play :D |
| Nerfed2Hell |
Posted - 31 Jan 2009 : 16:15:56
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
No, what dilutes the sales is when you flood the market with 8001 other "core" books from one company. What dilutes sales is not giving the customers what they want.
And, assuming 4e doesn't flop for losing a significant portion of hardcore 3e players, you don't think they won't keep adding sourcebooks to 4e to get themselves into the same situation? The way I see it, they started out with the business model to do so by excluding content that from the PHB that players wanted right from the start but seem willing to wait for. |
| ErskineF |
Posted - 31 Jan 2009 : 05:04:39
quote:
Originally posted by The Red Walker
They like them even more than that I'm afraid.
They're supposed to like them. If 4e makes them more money than they could have made by continuing in some other vein with 3e, then they made the right decision, both for the company and the majority of their customers. The money we spend on the products is our vote on how well we like them. If 4e does well, that means it's making the customers happy. I don't think it is, and I don't think it will. I know it's not making me happy, and I'm casting my vote accordingly.
|
| The Red Walker |
Posted - 31 Jan 2009 : 04:09:15
quote:
Originally posted by Kiaransalyn
quote:
Originally posted by Wrigs13
Not to be negative but 4e? Why?
Because WotC like gold pieces as much as our adventurers do?
They like them even more than that I'm afraid. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 31 Jan 2009 : 01:24:46
quote:
Originally posted by Nerfed2Hell
There were so many D&D 3e and 3.5e sourcebooks and third party D20 and OGL products that it eventually dilutes the sales of the core product. And all these are based on the three essentials (PHB, DMG, and MM) that are readily available for free. Its hard to sell those books when everyone either has them or uses the D20 SRD.
I don't think any of this was a factor... Gamers like to buy books, and most gamers can't conveniently set up a computer for each gaming session -- so the SRD, while nice, didn't kill sales.
And the OGL was brilliant, because it meant everybody could make games using the same rules -- so even if you weren't playing regular D&D, you still needed the books, and if you got into something else D20 before D&D, you could quite easily get into D&D. The OGL basically made D20 the ruleset for RPGs, so any playing any RPG could hook someone on D&D, and vice-versa.
No, what dilutes the sales is when you flood the market with 8001 other "core" books from one company. What dilutes sales is not giving the customers what they want. |
| Nerfed2Hell |
Posted - 30 Jan 2009 : 23:57:17
quote:
Originally posted by Kiaransalyn
quote:
Originally posted by Wrigs13
Not to be negative but 4e? Why?
Because WotC like gold pieces as much as our adventurers do?
That's the real reason for it... and almost any other business decision in the real world.
There were so many D&D 3e and 3.5e sourcebooks and third party D20 and OGL products that it eventually dilutes the sales of the core product. And all these are based on the three essentials (PHB, DMG, and MM) that are readily available for free. Its hard to sell those books when everyone either has them or uses the D20 SRD.
So there's the popular excuse that there's "too much" 3e material out there making the rules overly convoluted and in need of revision and simplification... 4e solves that "problem" by making all previous material useless. Meanwhile, the players are left wanting certain classes and races and other options because only so much can go into an initial sourcebook. This leaves WotC with the potential to sell more new sourcebooks later by including the material everyone's been waiting for... of course, over time, they'll just paint themselves into the same corner again having "too much" material making the rules as convoluted as before.
Rinse. Repeat. |
| Kiaransalyn |
Posted - 30 Jan 2009 : 09:33:04
quote:
Originally posted by Wrigs13
Not to be negative but 4e? Why?
Because WotC like gold pieces as much as our adventurers do? |
| Brimstone |
Posted - 30 Jan 2009 : 04:10:41
-Thank you Sage.
BRIMSTONE |
| The Sage |
Posted - 29 Jan 2009 : 23:00:05
quote:
Originally posted by althen artren
Victoren, Althen Artren's pet chihuahua while smoking:
4th Edition is great...FOR ME TO POOP ON.
Let's have none of that please. While you're free to discuss your apparent dislike of 4e, we don't need comments such as this to be posted.
Thank you. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 29 Jan 2009 : 22:48:22
quote:
Originally posted by ErskineF
People would have realized it was a joke immediately if it had mentioned weird changes to the Realms like advancing the timeline a hundred years, killing off Mystra and most of the NPCs of the Realms, etc.
Sadly... you are corect.
That joke was just 'mild' enough to be believable.
Much more so then what REALLY happened. 
Still, his 'prediction' about the minis was spot-on. |
| Wrigs13 |
Posted - 29 Jan 2009 : 22:02:39
Not to be negative but 4e? Why? |
| althen artren |
Posted - 29 Jan 2009 : 20:40:39
Victoren, Althen Artren's pet chihuahua while smoking:
4th Edition is great...FOR ME TO POOP ON.
|
|
|
