I'm neutral towards these. I want to see how much meat they contain before I bite into one. 32 pages of feats, optional replacement racial powers, paragon paths and epic destinies is pretty good value for US$10, better than the 3.x line of "Complete" splats.

16 pages of "Here are some sample PCs, and a sample Dragonborn village with a half-page map and NPC write-ups and a long list of distinguishing possible features for your Dragonborn PC like that he has curled scales or maybe a scar or a mustache or something," followed by 16 pages with a few feats, tons of fluff on the paragon paths and epic destinies for a combined total useful page count of <8 is what will leave me utterly cold. What I'd do instead then is simply buy into the character builder and leave the supps themselves alone.

Really, 4e is one of the few games where I am totally uninterested in the fluff and simply want crunch without any fluffy stuff taking up space. I also don't want as many examples as are currently given. I want tools for building my own shit.

IF they ever just put out  only the core rules in one volume, I'm willing to take a look, but with megacrap  like the Dragonborn and their silly Paladin variants, it's just a pill that's too hard to swallow. Even the  way they design the maps  to look like those stupid dungeon layouts makes me ill.

Quote from: Benoist;299456I call bullshit on you.

Remember?

Look. I'm not "looking for quotes that never took place". You said it yourself: "I stand by every single word in all those linked posts." You wrote that about... six posts above. These posts took place, you agree with them, and now you're trying to pedal your way out of an unsustainable argument.

I'm going to put it mildly and just say that you're not showing any shred of logic in your argumentation. You're the one rambling on and on repeating the same stuff over and over again to try to get a rise out of people. Between you and I, I think I'm not the one who's a griefer with way too much time on his hands here.

if I keep saying "yes I beleive every word" how is that a "backpedal"?

 If anything, you guys keep linking to vague posts as if they prove something, but I'm not sure what is meant to be proved. From the page you linked, I really do stand by every word - You neglected to actually point out which quote, so I'll just choose one.

I'm assuming a possible quote you are referring to is this one: .

"My claim is that people who mostly talk about stuff without playing it are cognizant in at least some way that they have already ceased to be part of the hobby."

Which I still believe is absolutely true.

But that does not say that "everyone here" is a griefer. That's ridiculous. It specifically lays out a specific criteria of behavior ("people who mostly talk about stuff without playing it")  that identifies and defines the griefers and further suggests a condition ("are cognizant in at least some way that they have already ceased to be part of the hobby.").

It's not a statement on "everyone" or "everyone here".. or about how if everyone isn't playing a certain game they aren't a gamer. It's about a very specific subset of people (see criterial above) who exhibit a very specific behavior. If you want to attribute a statement to me, feel free to use an actual quote.

The reason I suspect some of you guys want to make this recursive argument/accusation ("YOU said this hurtful thing about EVERYONE!") is because you want to generate allies. In other words, if you can somehow show that I've been horrible and hurtful to 'everyone' and not just the three dumbest dudes then you won't feel alone with the stupidity. There's a recurring thread of "Come on guys! What else are we mad about?" that accompanies almost all of these arguments, some of which have been going on for a year or more.

I can't help you with that. Stupidity for some people is a transitory state pending enlightenment, and for some people, it is the baseline of their entire identity. You are in the latter group.

I can say that elsewhere a logic statement of "never trust a deaf music critic" isn't likely to set off a firestorm of controversy.

Quote from: Benoist;299326Looks like 4e will have a whole range of splatbooks, judging by the upcoming Player's Handbook Races: Dragonborn.

What do you guys think? Good thing, bad thing?

Good idea, certainly. Did you like the idea that you could buy a class supplment for your favourite 2E class? If yes, then this is just as much for you. Personally, I don't have that much of a favoured race, and the race splat books in 3E - either WotC's or Green Ronin's - never did much for me. But anything that helps people to roleplay their (esp. exotic) races better, is a much appreciated extra for 4E.

Now, as to the execution. Terrible. It's WotC f**ing over its GSL-license-sharers once again. I mean, ok, when these companies started to replicate upcoming PHB 2 material, that was their own fault. But now WotC taking a tested idea from them so as to undermine GSL business? Good business tactics, but sorry Goodman Games. Basically, the shout goes out to any GSL company: if you produce bad 4E stuff, it won't sell to your customers, and if you produce good 4E stuff, WotC will take hold of it. Go figure.

http://www.goodman-games.com/4411preview.html

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;299486"My claim is that people who mostly talk about stuff without playing it are cognizant in at least some way that they have already ceased to be part of the hobby."

Which I still believe is absolutely true.

But that does not say that "everyone here" is a griefer. That's ridiculous. It specifically lays out a specific criteria of behavior ("people who mostly talk about stuff without playing it")  that identifies and defines the griefers and further suggests a condition ("are cognizant in at least some way that they have already ceased to be part of the hobby.").
iterial above) who exhibit a very specific behavior. If you want to attribute a statement to me, feel free to use an actual quote.
se arguments, some of which have been going on for a year or more.

So, your argument is that people who don't play RPGs don't play RPGs?

How brave.

As a side not (and this isn't really aimed directly at you) I cannot stand the term "griefers". Allow me a moment of Grammar Nazi behavior when I say that it should be "aggrievers", as "grief" is not a verb.

Quote from: mrk;299472IF they ever just put out  only the core rules in one volume, I'm willing to take a look, but with megacrap  like the Dragonborn and their silly Paladin variants, it's just a pill that's too hard to swallow. Even the  way they design the maps  to look like those stupid dungeon layouts makes me ill.

Then you might want to keep your eyes peeled in the next couple of weeks for a set of maps you might like better over at the Citadel.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;299461Really, 4e is one of the few games where I am totally uninterested in the fluff and simply want crunch without any fluffy stuff taking up space. I also don't want as many examples as are currently given. I want tools for building my own shit.

I agree with this.  I've found the fluff less than inspiring, even when the accompanying mechanics are good.

There are good points to the 4e system but it definitely has it's problems (eg. too much math, combat takes too long).  The fluff text and Trademarkicized names are pretty bad too, but that's much easier to remedy (eg. Bloodied -> Fatigued; Healing Surge -> Rest).

Quote from: Stuart;299503I agree with this.  I've found the fluff less than inspiring, even when the accompanying mechanics are good.

I'd disagree. The fluff in the books is usually rather bad (it's very little, and what there is isn't very inspiring). But that's far from all there is to 4E: the stuff on DDI is rather good on occasion. Case in point: Feywild (horrible in the planes book, but brilliant articles on DDI). Or, closer to the topic at hand:

//www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dreo/20080709

PS. By the way, what makes people think that the WotC book on Dragonborn will be a splat book (predominantly or exclusively)?

QuoteI can say that elsewhere a logic statement of "never trust a deaf music critic" isn't likely to set off a firestorm of controversy.

This is an imbecile comparison that I already addressed in a previous post of another thread.  I need to address that one again because obviously its your pet skewed end-all argument.

Other players of other games aren't "deaf music critics".They have ears and know how to play music themselves. A better comparison would be to say that someone expressing opinions about 4e without having played it but read and saw it in play is like a musician who would express opinions about Don Giovanni without having played it himself but knows the score and saw it performed. Assuming experience on the musician's part, this is a perfectly valid opinion.

So there. Your logic keeps sucking.

For the record, I'm done with the discussion with AM. It's just a huge fucking waste of time. I really don't have anything more to say. You want to continue being a dick with the logic of a retarded teenager, AM? Be my guest. Go to the echo chamber.

Quote from: Windjammer;299490Good idea, certainly. Did you like the idea that you could buy a class supplment for your favourite 2E class? If yes, then this is just as much for you. Personally, I don't have that much of a favoured race, and the race splat books in 3E - either WotC's or Green Ronin's - never did much for me. But anything that helps people to roleplay their (esp. exotic) races better, is a much appreciated extra for 4E.

Now, as to the execution. Terrible. It's WotC f**ing over its GSL-license-sharers once again. I mean, ok, when these companies started to replicate upcoming PHB 2 material, that was their own fault. But now WotC taking a tested idea from them so as to undermine GSL business? Good business tactics, but sorry Goodman Games. Basically, the shout goes out to any GSL company: if you produce bad 4E stuff, it won't sell to your customers, and if you produce good 4E stuff, WotC will take hold of it. Go figure.

http://www.goodman-games.com/4411preview.html

I didn't know Goodman had come up with its Dragonborn sourcebook.

I really don't understand how anyone can feel encouraged to use the GSL at all. I guess they don't. It's just a question of survival and desperation to them.

Quote from: Windjammer;299507PS. By the way, what makes people think that the WotC book on Dragonborn will be a splat book (predominantly or exclusively)?

That's a total assumption on my part, here.

Quote from: Windjammer;299507Case in point: Feywild (horrible in the planes book, but brilliant articles on DDI).

The language often puts me off.  I find Feywild to be a stupid name (and obviously there to get the TM in place) even though the concept is sound.  Shadowfell is equally stupid, even though the concept is fine.  Many of the powers are similar - get rid of the dumb names and goofy fluff text and it's much more palatable.

Let's add "Shadowdark" to the list of stupid names. Composed/fused words have been in D&D for the longest time, but there's just something "wrong" about that stuff. I never truly liked it, and it's becoming more and more of an assault on taste, imagination and suspension of disbelief, to me.

Quote from: Benoist;299512Let's add "Shadowdark" to the list of stupid names.

I thought that was a Penny Arcade joke -- don't tell me that's seriously in the official material???

The guys of Penny Arcade weren't aware of anything when they made up the word, but it's an actual place mentioned in the Manual of the Planes, apparently.

Quote from: Benoist;299514The guys of Penny Arcade weren't aware of anything when they made up the word, but it's an actual place mentioned in the Manual of the Planes, apparently.

Yes it is. There's also the Feydark. The idea is that, not only do you have two mirror planes to the material plane - fey and shadow -, also those mirror planes each need their own Underdark.

If you think the very idea is hilarious, its execution in Manual of the Planes tops it: "the Shadowdark is much like the Shadowfell - except darker... and colder". Man, I reviewed MotP at great length for another forum and the no.1 thing that really riled me up was how the book didn't live up to expectations built up on DDI with great things like the article on Fomorians. And the prose used by that Transformers Movie screen writer was actually waaaay below the worst we saw in PHB 2. One of my favourite conspiracy theories is that WotC puts out hardcovers that suck (both in production quality and content) to encourage people to subscribe to DDI instead.

Quote from: Stuart;299511The language often puts me off.  I find Feywild to be a stupid name (and obviously there to get the TM in place) even though the concept is sound.  Shadowfell is equally stupid, even though the concept is fine.  Many of the powers are similar - get rid of the dumb names and goofy fluff text and it's much more palatable.

That's why I liked the German 4E books so much, where the language itself and some noble efforts from the translators helped to rectify much of that "hip" language. Thank God, WotC pulled that license so soon - that, and removing the PDFs, really helped me save money otherwise spent on their product.


...Anyway. If you guys really want to discuss the proliferation of splat in 4E, I suggest we discuss the Power supplements and PHB 2. My impression is that the main problem with splat proliferation in 3E - power creep - has been handled much better in 4E.