A VERY positive review of 4E

David Trimboli wrote:
> Tetsubo wrote:
>
>> David Trimboli wrote:
>>
>>> Allen Wessels wrote:
>>>
>>>> So far everything about 4e feels like a low power CCG with figures
>>>> and a battlemat. Including the "coolness".
>>>>
>>>> It's a fine game. It just isn't D&D anymore.
>>>
>>>
>>> Gee. That's exactly what I said about the third edition.
>>>
>>
>> Except that 3E is (and was) a WHOLE lot more like 2E then 4E is
>> like 3E. Not to mention that 2E was vastly broken and 3.5 is a
>> perfectly solid system that doesn't need replacing.
>
>
> Oh, yes. That must've been exactly what I meant. How good of you to
> point that out for me!
>

Sometimes Tetsubo is helpful that way. I'm glad your thoughts have
been clarified, because the way you phrased it previously was clearly
badly confused.

--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://seawasp.livejournal.com
 >> Stay informed about: A VERY positive review of 4E 

In article <13sj889buj5iu5b RemoveThis @corp.supernews.com>,
"Mark Blunden" <markATmarkdbDOTplusDOTcom RemoveThis @addresss.invalid> wrote:

> "Allen Wessels" <awessels RemoveThis @EXPUNGEpacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:awessels-97DD98.01463601032008@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net...
>
> > It's a fine game. It just isn't D&D anymore.
>
> No. It just isn't D&D *yet*.

If you own the rights, you can always redefine the thing. Just don't
tell me it's the *same* thing.

- Allen
 >> Stay informed about: A VERY positive review of 4E 

In article <Yt-dnYUWibxQC1TanZ2dnUVZ_remnZ2d.RemoveThis@comcast.com>,
"Malachias Invictus" <invictusebay.RemoveThis@yahoo.com> wrote:

> "David Trimboli" <david.RemoveThis@trimboli.name> wrote in message
> news:47c98152$0$5610$607ed4bc@cv.net...
> > Allen Wessels wrote:
> >> So far everything about 4e feels like a low power CCG with figures and a
> >> battlemat. Including the "coolness".
> >>
> >> It's a fine game. It just isn't D&D anymore.
> >
> > Gee. That's exactly what I said about the third edition.
>
> ...and what countless others said about 2E. All of you were wrong.

I don't think so. When you run just a few of these changes by the
people you game with and they say "not D&D", at the very least you're in
good company.

Even the playtester pointed out that play was qualitatively different.
The guy DMing the thing with the rules in front of him knows it's a
different game.

And trust me, when they get some forward momentum under their belt, I
guarantee that WoTC will talk up the fact that they had to make a
dramatic change in the game to appeal to a new audience.

They just don't have the balls to admit it right now because they're
afraid of alienating their existing customer base.

The funny thing about marketing people is that they never think they're
lying, just presenting different perspectives. There are no truths,
just points of view.

- Allen
 >> Stay informed about: A VERY positive review of 4E 

Alien mind control rays made Allen Wessels <awessels DeleteThis @expungepacbell.net> write:
> It's a fine game. It just isn't D&D anymore.

damn right. in D&D, elf is a class, damnit.

--
n_n n_n drow DeleteThis @bin.sh (CARRIER LOST) <http://www.bin.sh/>
|"|n_n_n|"| ---------------------------------------------------------------
| | " " | | "I thought this job would have more death in it. It's been,
|_|_[T]_|_| like, three days, and I've only killed two or three people."
-- Ahab to Corwin, on being King
 >> Stay informed about: A VERY positive review of 4E 

In article <BZydnV6-uYW8KlTanZ2dnUVZ_tbinZ2d.TakeThisOut@comcast.com>,
Tetsubo <tetsubo.TakeThisOut@comcast.net> wrote:

> David Trimboli wrote:
>
> > Allen Wessels wrote:
> >
> >> So far everything about 4e feels like a low power CCG with figures and
> >> a battlemat. Including the "coolness".
> >>
> >> It's a fine game. It just isn't D&D anymore.
> >
> >
> > Gee. That's exactly what I said about the third edition.
> >
>
> Except that 3E is (and was) a WHOLE lot more like 2E then 4E is like
> 3E. Not to mention that 2E was vastly broken and 3.5 is a perfectly
> solid system that doesn't need replacing.

With 3e, the combat system was gutted to make D&D better. In 4e, D&D
was gutted to make the combat system better.

- Allen
 >> Stay informed about: A VERY positive review of 4E 

On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 23:44:00 GMT, Allen Wessels
<awessels RemoveThis @EXPUNGEpacbell.net> wrote:

>In article <BZydnV6-uYW8KlTanZ2dnUVZ_tbinZ2d RemoveThis @comcast.com>,
> Tetsubo <tetsubo RemoveThis @comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> David Trimboli wrote:
>>
>> > Allen Wessels wrote:
>> >
>> >> So far everything about 4e feels like a low power CCG with figures and
>> >> a battlemat. Including the "coolness".
>> >>
>> >> It's a fine game. It just isn't D&D anymore.
>> >
>> >
>> > Gee. That's exactly what I said about the third edition.
>> >
>>
>> Except that 3E is (and was) a WHOLE lot more like 2E then 4E is like
>> 3E. Not to mention that 2E was vastly broken and 3.5 is a perfectly
>> solid system that doesn't need replacing.
>
>With 3e, the combat system was gutted to make D&D better. In 4e, D&D
>was gutted to make the combat system better.

And with 3e the previous combat system didn't need much gutting; it
was already a burnt-out ruin. In fact, I'd say that the 3e combat
system was a lot closer to RAW 1e combat than to what most players
actually used in 1e & 2e. The big advantage of the 3e system is that
it's a battlemat & miniatures system usable by Mere Mortals (vs the 1e
system which was usable only by Total Wargaming Geeks).

Erol K. Bayburt
ErolB1 RemoveThis @comcast.net
 >> Stay informed about: A VERY positive review of 4E 

"Tetsubo" <tetsubo DeleteThis @comcast.net> wrote in message
news:3-WdnWkp3qajJVTanZ2dnUVZ_uDinZ2d@comcast.com...
> Mark Blunden wrote:
>
>> "Allen Wessels" <awessels DeleteThis @EXPUNGEpacbell.net> wrote in message
>> news:awessels-97DD98.01463601032008@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net...
>>
>>> It's a fine game. It just isn't D&D anymore.
>>
>>
>> No. It just isn't D&D *yet*.
>>
>
> So what have you been playing for the past thirty years?

Various iterations of games under the label "Dungeons & Dragons", each with
distinct differences from their predecessor, and each of which - once
released and widely played - *became* the then-current definition of D&D. 4e
will do the same.

--
Mark.
 >> Stay informed about: A VERY positive review of 4E 

drow wrote:
> Alien mind control rays made Allen Wessels <awessels.DeleteThis@expungepacbell.net> write:
>
>>It's a fine game. It just isn't D&D anymore.
>
>
> damn right. in D&D, elf is a class, damnit.
>

I don't own a copy of the Rules Cyclopedia, I would love too though.

--
Tetsubo
--------------------------------------
"The apparent lesson of the Inquisition is that insistence on
uniformity of belief is fatal to intellectual, moral and spiritual health."
-The Uses Of The Past-, Herbert J. Muller

BLUP
 >> Stay informed about: A VERY positive review of 4E 

In article <13sjscn9ur2mjab.TakeThisOut@corp.supernews.com>,
"Mark Blunden" <markATmarkdbDOTplusDOTcom.TakeThisOut@addresss.invalid> wrote:

> "Tetsubo" <tetsubo.TakeThisOut@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:3-WdnWkp3qajJVTanZ2dnUVZ_uDinZ2d@comcast.com...
> > Mark Blunden wrote:
> >
> >> "Allen Wessels" <awessels.TakeThisOut@EXPUNGEpacbell.net> wrote in message
> >> news:awessels-97DD98.01463601032008@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net...
> >>
> >>> It's a fine game. It just isn't D&D anymore.
> >>
> >>
> >> No. It just isn't D&D *yet*.
> >>
> >
> > So what have you been playing for the past thirty years?
>
> Various iterations of games under the label "Dungeons & Dragons", each with
> distinct differences from their predecessor, and each of which - once
> released and widely played - *became* the then-current definition of D&D. 4e
> will do the same.

It is possible for products to fail. Widely played for any length of
time remains to be seen.

What I see is a highly regularized game that will get repstitive rather
quickly without regular infusions of new monsters and classes. We'll
see how well heeled and loyal the new demographic will be.

- Allen
 >> Stay informed about: A VERY positive review of 4E 

On Mar 1, 6:54 pm, "Malachias Invictus" <invictuse....TakeThisOut@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> <Lorenz.L....TakeThisOut@gmx.de> wrote in message
>
> news:c75ddd00-b1f5-4231-a298-46557adb9aec@o77g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Feb 29, 6:19 pm, Justisaur <justis....TakeThisOut@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Feb 29, 12:05 am, Lorenz.L....TakeThisOut@gmx.de wrote:
> >> > On Feb 28, 9:25 pm, Jim Seymour <nntp....TakeThisOut@thentao.com> wrote:
> >> > "...The one that crawled up my craw the first session was the fact
> >> > that
> >> > diagonal movement counts as just one square. The idea that you
> >> > could move faster diagonally than you could straight or side to side
> >> > is retarded. But ..."
>
> >> > Sorry to interrupt, but *it's retarded*, full stop.
> >> > Not even deserving a second glance.
>
> >> It's not a bad idea. It speeds play by warping the field a little.
>
> > IMO it's very bad.
>
> Why? Is it *really* that critical of an issue? If so, simply keep things
> the way they are. Problem solved.

Of course, but why not talk about it here?

> >> I really couldn't care less about it, and am
> >> surprised anyone would be that vehement about it.
>
> > The way this fellow on AICN babbled is just annoying.
>
> Not to me, it wasn't. He was very enthusiastic, but so what?

Cite: "EVERY RULE CHANGE IS LIKE THIS. It all just works."
I'm worried when I read such stuff and the only example is retarded.

> > I bet he's *not* a playtester but a marketing stooge.
>
> You are obviously not very familiar with the author.

You're right, it's my first impression. Do you really think his
review is objective?

LL
 >> Stay informed about: A VERY positive review of 4E 

On Sat, 1 Mar 2008 09:48:03 -0800, "Malachias Invictus"
<invictusebay.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>"David Trimboli" <david.TakeThisOut@trimboli.name> wrote in message
>news:47c98152$0$5610$607ed4bc@cv.net...
>> Allen Wessels wrote:
>>> So far everything about 4e feels like a low power CCG with figures and a
>>> battlemat. Including the "coolness".
>>>
>>> It's a fine game. It just isn't D&D anymore.
>>
>> Gee. That's exactly what I said about the third edition.
>
>...and what countless others said about 2E. All of you were wrong.
>^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^


Your experiences must have been different than mine regarding the
introduction of 2E. While there were a number of changes, there were
no real difficulties if a 1E character was played in a 2E campaign (at
least, no difficulties in the groups I played with). It was almost
completely "backwards compatible".

The change from 2E to 3E did not keep this compatability. Characters
had to get a MAJOR overhaul when moving to 3E and the feel of those
characters was significantly different. Multiclassing in particular
was a problem for compatibility. A 7/7 multiclass who used to hang
out with his 9th-10th level teammates of "roughly equal playing
strength" suddenly found himself considered 14th level if you brought
levels over on a 1 to 1 basis. It was a mess to try to convert. ACs
that didn't match up, Stats that were much different - you couldn't
just plop a 2E character right into a 3E game. It took a lot of work.

1E to 2E involved minor tweaks. 2E to 3E involved major changes. So
while I would agree that there were quite a few people who felt the 3E
was "no longer AD&D", I can't think of anyone I gamed with who had
such an opinion about 1E->2E. I can think of several who felt the
changes weren't needed or weren't worth the money, but none who felt
that it "wasn't the same game."

(Unless, of course, you were using "countless" in the sense of "you
can't count something that isn't there". <grin>)
 >> Stay informed about: A VERY positive review of 4E 

Malachias Invictus wrote:
> "Justisaur" <justisaur.RemoveThis@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:419fb64c-1f45-4c37-81af-a26ab54cc41c@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>
>> I too prefer either of those, but it's not a big deal and easily house
>> ruled either way. I really couldn't care less about it, and am
>> surprised anyone would be that vehement about it.
>
> I am not surprised, but sheesh! There are certainly better things to get
> bent about.
>

Biggest issues so far have been the banishing of the 15-minute
adventuring day (or not), whether dragonborn females have bQQbies, and
this. I can understand the first two issues, but I never knew that so
many gamers' ability to pretend to be elves was so critically impacted
by how well the game approximates the square root of 2.
 >> Stay informed about: A VERY positive review of 4E 

"Hong Ooi" <hong DeleteThis @zipworld.com.au> wrote in message
news:13sj4ge3q91ehf7@corp.supernews.com...
> Malachias Invictus wrote:
>> "Justisaur" <justisaur DeleteThis @gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:419fb64c-1f45-4c37-81af-a26ab54cc41c@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>> I too prefer either of those, but it's not a big deal and easily house
>>> ruled either way. I really couldn't care less about it, and am
>>> surprised anyone would be that vehement about it.
>>
>> I am not surprised, but sheesh! There are certainly better things to get
>> bent about.
>>
>
> Biggest issues so far have been the banishing of the 15-minute adventuring
> day (or not),

How dare they!

> whether dragonborn females have bQQbies,

<shakes head sadly>

> and this. I can understand the first two issues, but I never knew that so
> many gamers' ability to pretend to be elves was so critically impacted by
> how well the game approximates the square root of 2.

"Impacted" is the operative word, but in another sense.

--
^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishment the scroll,
I am the Master of my fate:
I am the Captain of my soul.

from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley
 >> Stay informed about: A VERY positive review of 4E