One of the best 4E reviews I've seen so far...
If your character's name is "my guy" as in "my guy hits the monster," or "my guy grabs the treasure," this might be for you.
If you prefer video games to other people, and think interactive storytelling is for wussies, buy it.
But if you're an actual role-player, and especially if you've loved the previous D&D games, buy Pathfinder instead. D&D 4e is the worst pile of drek I've ever wasted money on. I'm taking my copy back for a refund.
Very informative and not the least bit confrontational!
Seriously, what is it with nerds and 4E? There's plenty of rational discourse and commentary about it (such as here and here), but there's so much of this unsupported, vitriolic, emotionally-unhinged ranting. I understand this is par for the course when it comes to human nature and isn't limited to gamers (I live in Chicago and have seen how Cubs and White Sox fans act at times), but it still seems so ridiculous. It's one thing not to like something, but to go on at length about how it sucks without providing any substance to your reasoning...I don't get it.
What does the author think a "review" like this will accomplish, anyway? A rational person isn't going to consider it if they're trying to find out information on 4E; anyone who takes it to heart will simply be doing so to reinforce their own bias against the game. There's nothing wrong with disliking something, but why not say why you dislike it? I keep hearing the detractors saying "4E is just like a video game". OK...in what way? Try to support your argument with examples, otherwise you just sound like a raving loon.
If you prefer video games to other people, and think interactive storytelling is for wussies, buy it.
But if you're an actual role-player, and especially if you've loved the previous D&D games, buy Pathfinder instead. D&D 4e is the worst pile of drek I've ever wasted money on. I'm taking my copy back for a refund.
Very informative and not the least bit confrontational!
Seriously, what is it with nerds and 4E? There's plenty of rational discourse and commentary about it (such as here and here), but there's so much of this unsupported, vitriolic, emotionally-unhinged ranting. I understand this is par for the course when it comes to human nature and isn't limited to gamers (I live in Chicago and have seen how Cubs and White Sox fans act at times), but it still seems so ridiculous. It's one thing not to like something, but to go on at length about how it sucks without providing any substance to your reasoning...I don't get it.
What does the author think a "review" like this will accomplish, anyway? A rational person isn't going to consider it if they're trying to find out information on 4E; anyone who takes it to heart will simply be doing so to reinforce their own bias against the game. There's nothing wrong with disliking something, but why not say why you dislike it? I keep hearing the detractors saying "4E is just like a video game". OK...in what way? Try to support your argument with examples, otherwise you just sound like a raving loon.
posted by MythosaAkira | 4:08 PM
6 Comments:
This kind of thing is pervasive in our society these days - gaming, politics, music, ANYTHING. I hate it, and the problem is that close-minded idiocy is quite contagious and even perfectly smart people can catch it sometimes...
I think you (the blogger, not the previous commenter) sell the reviewer short. Of course, I think he sells the system short, but that's another story.
The main complaint from him isn't that "it's different", but that it doesn't offer enough role playing opportunities. While I disagree (see Skill Challenges in the DMG), I can see his point. And he's letting us know that he is adamant in his beliefs, so much so that he advocates a competing product.
I agree there are a lot of unsupported negative reviews of D&D 4e, but at least this one had a reason. Many, especially those on forums, don't give any reason whatsoever.
I started to make a post on a D&D forum on why i hate 4E. As I listed my dislikes, I realized what I did liked about 4E. Then, i remembered the forward in my old 2E PHB (or was it the DMG :P) making a comment about how these are just rules to provide a basis for gameplay and are not set in stone. I closed out my broswer and went back studing the new 4E books. I think ppl are more resist to change and really have not given it a chance. I'm am not totally happy with 4E, but I am going to give it a chance.
The biggest reasons most of those that dislike the game are upset with it are the number of changes to pull the game away from it's roots and to force it to be a pathetic attempt at being World of Warcraft on the table-top.
Here's the biggest problems with the game (from what I've seen, and from what I've seen posted on forums and in chats, blogs, etc):
1 - The "healing surges" are a silly way to artificially boost HP so that characters have little to no fears of dying. True, nobody likes to see their characters die, but most gamers like to have the sense of danger and challenge in combat - not the peace of mind that comes from having up to 98 HP in a single day for their fighter (as the most point-by-point example showed) - through using healing surges. Secondary to this is the video game feeling of "you rest 8 hours overnight and presto like magic you're completely healed of ALL wounds and damages!"
2 - Saving throws make the effects of anything remotely dangerous basically a moot point and hardly worth bothering with. The effects are rolled as attacks against one of four stats now (your three saving throws are not "AC-like" stats; and AC itself is the fourth). If they hit you're effected by the effect - most effects are minor by comparison to the former rules and at the end of your turn you make a roll to end ongoing effects your character is under... Roll 1d20, if you get a 10 or better all effects stop. Basically no matter how powerful the creature is or how powerful a spell was that affected you badly, it will be 100% negated and made moot with a single roll 55% of the time... That's lame.
3 - The game is so miniatures-required that it's practically a board game. There's no "mini-centric" or "minis-are-helpful" approach anymore. WotC has had, due to poor marketing strategies (hint to WotC: RPG gamers are NOT Magic CCG players; WE DON'T WANT EVERY MINI RANDOM IN "BOOSTER PACKS!" And gamers certainly didn't want half of the darned things "unique," "uncommon," "rare," or "ultra-rare." ESPECIALLY when some of the ones in those limited (even "commons" were limited in number though) quantities were some of the more common figures you'd want hordes of (like goblins, skeletons, etc). So they instead make the game near to impossible to play without buying their miniatures - and force the game to be played in "squares" and with abstract "wall" (that effects a sweep of squares directly around your character - not all the way around, but enough to make it corny) type attacks and movements like "push," "pull," and "slide" the game is directly pulling form the D&D Miniatures rules to replace the prior version's combat system. Essentially, "screw you gamers, you'll buy our minis to play D&D like we wanted because you'll have no choice but to play D&D minis (sort of) to play D&D at all." That attitude sucks. Had they made their minis more regularly available and more appropriately marketed and priced (limited and special quantity figures being random in boxes allowed them to artificially jack the price up on ALL figures) they would have sold more minis (in all likelihood).
4 - Races. The options for the races were horrible. They replaced one of the more popular (half-orc; they deny it was popular, but when they put 3.5 out there was a comment about removing it and players went nuts, WotC officials made numerous statements saying they were keeping the race since it was "one of the most popular in the game.") and complained that there were too many types of elves (using two NATION names as "races" of elves because they some people hadn't played the new Eberron world and wouldn't know better, argued that the subraces hurt the game and that the "core" of D&D was always mired with this - actually ONLY Forgotten Realms (where MOST of these came into the game to begin with) is "mired" with subraces. Most D&D worlds have Elves, Drow (dark elves), and half elves... yeah, that's hard to follow. But then WotC is so confused over "race" and "nation" they probably think Europe is a nation, and Canadians and Americans are different subraces of human!). They also changed the racial bonuses to ONLY include bonuses (no negative modifiers anymore - so how DO you equate a race being stronger, but less agile than a human (the typical baseline by which other races are measured against)? Well apparently humans are the suckiest creatures in existence because without a +x to something you're deficient in it somehow (since no negatives exist the absence of a positive is now the differentiation between better than an worse than - humans have NO positive attribute modifiers! NONE! We're the deficient in all physical and mental qualifiers race! That's absurd!).
Also the addition of the Tiefling (and not the reciprocal Aasimar) harkens to the ideas of the new system "screw the good guys let's be evil!" They allow evil paladins (this is a gripe in classes, below), and now have a Demon-blooded (in the ancestral lineage somewhere) PC race (which, BTW, was a +1 ECL race in 3.5 - no such thing in 4e; so more powerful races are simply that much more powerful than those that weren't ECL+1 in the old system). See the trend towards "more power, more power, more power" yet?
And I didn't even make a point about the gnomes, one of the long-standing trademark races of the D&D tradition and history... They're not just monsters, not fit for PC play because of a "lack of history and tradition" in the D&D game... Completely missed the fact that they've been around forever!
5- Classes. They removed some of the classic classes and replaced them with classes too similar to the others in the book: Cleric & Paladin, Warlock & Wizard (generally Warlocks are considered Sorcerers in terms of spells per day, but like Wizards on steroids in terms of power and "punch" in 3.5 no surprise THEY made the core class list), Fighter & Warlord, and Ranger & Rogue - now these last two aren't too similar like the others - and there are vast differences in some ways... But all in all they've limited your class selection A LOT!
Also, all classes have the same Base Attack bonus - 1/2 your character level. Wow, so a 10th level wizard is just as handy with a sword in basic martial training as a fighter at 10th level. That's just dumb!
6 - Skills... Oh, well, when they actually get a real skills system BACK into the game, I'll comment on the skills. For now it basically works that you have a handful of skills you can pick as "trained" and that you get a +5 to, and a few more "class skills (that you pick those trained ones from) that you don't get a +5 on (plus whatever else for situation, attribute mods, etc), and well that's skills in a nutshell. And the list of skills... Acrobatics, Arcana, Athletics, Bluff, Diplomacy, Dungeoneering, Endurance, Heal, History, Insight, Intimidate, Nature, Perception, Religion, Steal, Streetwise, Thievery. That's EVERYTHING! That's it!? Yes, that's it.
7 - The book's design, content, and layout. They wanted to go to a more "magazine like" layout with these books Slaviscek (I butchered his name, didn't I? - I'll trunc it to "Slav." here on out) said in an Ampersand article. They didn't like "endless pages of text and tables" and felt that that was distracting and discouraging to new players. Basically he's saying that by adding white space, more large images, and taking away a lot of text and tables (I read that to be "less content and more "space" and "fluff") the game will somehow magically be "better to play." You'll certainly have LESS to read in the books... Which are more expensive, and have (in all but one of the three core books) fewer pages than the previous books did... Nice, more for less, and less, and well... less. Wow, that's so much "better"... ???
Add this to the "3 and out" setting strategy they've announced for their support to campaign settings: This is 1 DM's book for the setting, 1 Player's book for the setting, and 1 adventure for the setting to get things started. Everything else that comes out for it will be in their subscription-based Dungeon and Dragon E-Magazines (which you can't even print or save an electronic copy of as a subscriber without paying an additional fee per magazine per month to do so - that's crappy too! That brings me to the "yet to launch" D&D Insider tools (and the "yet to function well and properly" D&D Insider & Gleemax web pages). The tools don't exist yet, but they promise they will... But these are monthly fee accessible only and they are the source for updates, errata changes, and new material - well save for that the core three books will have a new book each calendar year from the release of the 4e books. So next spring at DDXP (D&D Experience - the convention formerly called "Winter Fantasy") they'll release Player's Handbook 2, Dungeon Master's Guide 2, and Monster Manual 2; a year later, books 3, then the next year - you got it, books 4... and so on. So you pay monthly to view the content and have to pay more to print or save the magazines, and then you have to look forward to little to no support for the campaign settings they're doing, and then you STILL have to pay around $90 a year ON TOP OF EVERYTHING ELSE to keep "current" and to add the new classes, powers, monsters, etc.?! Clearly they've got the "Sit down, shut up, and hand over your wallets... NOW!" mentality towards us gamers. It's absurd, inexcusable and many of us just won't tolerate it.
Extra- One more... Their "GSL" license for other companies is atrocious and they should get a collective kick in the collective groin for assuming they have the right to control what others do and the audacity to try and push around the entire gaming industry like that. That's so arrogant and egotistical. Heck, they want fans to sign "non-3.x content" agreements to do FAN SITES! They can kiss my ass! No, don't worry about me having a "fan site" for 4e, THAT'LL NEVER happen!
That's a few explained and defended (and about impossible to deny/argue) reasons a lot of us gamers DON'T like the game. Basically, it's NOT D&D and they're (WotC) being too demanding on our wallets while shafting us in content and the ability to do what we want with what we pay for.
I think you (the blogger, not the previous commenter) sell the reviewer short.
No, I'm not. His "review" adds nothing to the discussion of 4E.
The main complaint from him isn't that "it's different", but that it doesn't offer enough role playing opportunities.
I didn't say his complaint was that "it's different". I said it was useless because it was just a rant with nothing to back it up.
I agree there are a lot of unsupported negative reviews of D&D 4e, but at least this one had a reason.
I would agree it's a step above "I don't like 4E", but it still doesn't really say anything.
Setting aside the confrontational and insulting tone of the rant (it's a shame that too many people don't realize you can talk about something you dislike and still remain civil), it doesn't really tell me anything about the game if I'm not familiar with it. OK, he says that you won't like it if you don't like role-playing. Well - why? I'm not going to just read some anonymous Internet poster's rant and take their word for it.
I'm am not totally happy with 4E, but I am going to give it a chance.
That's a good attitude to have :)
And for the record, I'm not completely sold on the game yet since I'm still getting familiar with it (and I have yet to create my first adventure for it, which will be a good test of some of the DM-oriented changes).
And if people don't like it and prefer 3.5 or Pathfinder or something else, there's obviously nothing wrong with that. My point is simply that if you're going to say something, try to add something constructive to the discussion...
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home