TheRPGSite

...in the provocative posts department, so I present to you:

Feeling 4tigued (http://www.rpgmusings.com/2010/10/feeling-4tigued/)

I got the link from my Tweeterer feed, and here are some pull quotes:

QuoteI think this starts with the most recent products. Essentials is  giving the impression of D&D 4.5. Truth be told, I’m tired of  fighting that perception because I’m starting to buy into it myself.  It’s not simply “Essentials = 4.5E” though. It’s more “Rules Compendium  as a repackaged rulebook featuring the truckton of errata we’ve compiled  over 2 years feels very half-editionish.”
 My most tactically capable player, at the end of the night, stated  flatly that he is really starting to dislike 4E and would really like to  go back to 3.5. That’s a bit of a shocker to me, considering he is  really able to “game” the 4E system with his characters. He said he  feels like he doesn’t have the freedom to be creative and do things  outside the “power” system in this edition, and I kind of understand his  position.

QuoteThat segways into another 4E complaint I have. There is far too much  to remember. So many modifiers/powers/effects/options/movement/etc.  leads to information overload. Halfway through a fight I don’t even care  anymore whether the players are being honest or not, I’m just looking  to get things over with and move on. Usually to the next fight which  just begins the cycle anew.
 It was a bit disheartening that a number of times the words “That’s stupid” or “That doesn’t make sense” were spoken on both sides  of the screen. What’s even more distressing is that it’s becoming an  unhealthy relationship at the table where the players and I are trying  to manipulate RAW to “out-rule” each other

"What's even more distressing is that it's becoming an unhealthy relationship at the table where the players and I are trying to manipulate RAW to "out-rule" each other "
 
I started feeling that way with the power creep of the 3.5 splatbooks.  New classes clearly more powerful than core plus the advantage of buying hundreds of dollars of books to be aware of specific combos gave some people a clear advantage.  It all starts feeling more like nerd rule trivia to outdo each other instead of characters having adventures.
 
I never played 4e bacause reading it felt like more of the same.

Quote from: Nicephorus;412473"What's even more distressing is that it's becoming an unhealthy relationship at the table where the players and I are trying to manipulate RAW to "out-rule" each other "
 
I started feeling that way with the power creep of the 3.5 splatbooks.  New classes clearly more powerful than core plus the advantage of buying hundreds of dollars of books to be aware of specific combos gave some people a clear advantage.  It all starts feeling more like nerd rule trivia to outdo each other instead of characters having adventures.
 
I never played 4e bacause reading it felt like more of the same.

I have nothing to do with 4E. I can't even discuss it rationally. I just burst into nerd rage when it comes up.

But I have never understood the statement you made about 3.5. No rule makes it onto my gaming table without my permission as GM. Add all the rules and classes you want to, but not one of them will see use at my table unless I say it does. Is this an uncommon practice? Do most gamers just add new stuff in without any editing?

Quote from: Tetsubo;412475I have nothing to do with 4E. I can't even discuss it rationally. I just burst into nerd rage when it comes up.

But I have never understood the statement you made about 3.5. No rule makes it onto my gaming table without my permission as GM. Add all the rules and classes you want to, but not one of them will see use at my table unless I say it does. Is this an uncommon practice? Do most gamers just add new stuff in without any editing?

Yeah, I don't understand this either.  I responded to someone on RPGGeek earlier today about the ability overly game the system in D&D 3.0/3.5 as being, in no small part, a function of the splatbook treadmill.  Just step off and a lot of the problem goes away.

But it seems that it's a lot more common to have some kind of "everything goes" mentality.  Certainly that seems to be WoTC's take, with pretty much every book being core and a possible option that a player can show up at your table with.

I'm not saying that I'm against expansions, but almost everything I've run has been done from core books (the older meaning of that word) with perhaps a single expansion for a particular flavour.

Are you guys stupid? If you could read, you would have seen that the underlying problem is the tactical illusionism of 4e coupled to its obesity scooter difficulty level philosophy.

I told everyone back in 2007. But that does not matter. What matters now is that some people are too stupid to read.

Meanwhile, on a cosmic level, WotC fails miserably. And there cannot be any excuse for that: DDI. This is the Death Spiral already in action for 4e. There can be no doubt about it.

Quote from: Settembrini;412491Are you guys stupid? If you could read, you would have seen that the underlying problem is the tactical illusionism of 4e coupled to its obesity scooter difficulty level philosophy.

I told everyone back in 2007. But that does not matter. What matters now is that some people are too stupid to read.

Ah, I have seen the light.

One soul saved!

Settembrini:  5000+ shots on goal, 0 points.

The fuck? You are indeed a douchebag. I don' t know you, but you can easily check out what I said about 4e. You will find that I predicted EVERYTHING the OP link complains about in 2007 and early 08.

Idiot.

Quote from: Tetsubo;412475But I have never understood the statement you made about 3.5. No rule makes it onto my gaming table without my permission as GM. Add all the rules and classes you want to, but not one of them will see use at my table unless I say it does. Is this an uncommon practice? Do most gamers just add new stuff in without any editing?

Dunno about the gaming public in general, but on RPGNet's D&D board, that sort of thing would get you billed as a horrible GM.

Attitudes have changed. Fortunately, you don't have to. :cool:

Quote from: Settembrini;412502The fuck? You are indeed a douchebag. I don' t know you, but you can easily check out what I said about 4e. You will find that I predicted EVERYTHING the OP link complains about in 2007 and early 08.

Idiot.

Yeah, fucking how so?  2007 and "early" 2008?  The core books didn't come out until June '08, dipshit.  They only leaked onto the net a little prior to that.  Does that mean that you were one of the fuckers that decried the whole damn system based on the tidbit previews that were released?  "Oh noes, the end of roleplaying!!"

You never post anything to back up your opinions; all you do are make circuitous remarks as to the failure of 4e and how all its players are fuckwads.  Where have you posted anything that shows you have some practical insite into playing the game?  Everything you post about 4e paints you as pointless nag that knows nothing of the game.

Quote from: StormBringer;412467Benoist is getting ahead of me...in the provocative posts department

Huh? :)

I don't see 4e as all that complex, but I do understand the "Fuck please just let the players roll well and get this fight over with."

That's why I like 4e for short-term games (3-5 sessions) rather than long-term campaigns.  So much of the system is focused on the here and now and the fight fighty fighting, that the rest of it gets taken for granted unless you deliberately steer away from using the system to make play "go".  I love tactical challenges and resource management but there just isn't enough of that outside of combat to make me want to play more than a few sessions in a row.

...Just gotta decide between AD&D or BD&D now, since my group is in need of a campaign after our 4e one fell apart (scheduling conflicts, mostly)...

Quote from: Tetsubo;412475But I have never understood the statement you made about 3.5. No rule makes it onto my gaming table without my permission as GM. Add all the rules and classes you want to, but not one of them will see use at my table unless I say it does. Is this an uncommon practice? Do most gamers just add new stuff in without any editing?

Most players have become dependent on the DDi character builder, which pretty much has every option for 4E, ever loaded into it's database.  With all of the feats, powers, alternate class features, Paragon Paths, etc. available, no one really wants to use the books to create characters anymore.

The problem here is that while the CB is a convenient utility, it's also a pain in the ass to edit things out and is notoriously unfriendly to houseruling...pretty much ensuring that if you use it, you're playing the way WotC wants you to play...and the way WotC wants you to play is the way that sells the most sourcebooks.

Unfortunately, there is a pervasive "anything goes" mentality to the game these days. For example, if you tell a player that Gnomes aren't a part of your setting, then the player will most likely demand an explanation justifying it rather than simply accepting and moving on.

I still like the base 4E rules, but I'm personally sick of the splatbook treadmill and the bloated mass of feats and powers that come along with it...which is why I'm switching my game to Essentials and Essentials only.

Quote from: Shazbot79;412515I still like the base 4E rules, but I'm personally sick of the splatbook treadmill and the bloated mass of feats and powers that come along with it...which is why I'm switching my game to Essentials and Essentials only.

Do you also think the moon is made of green cheese?  Seanchai seemed to imply that these two went together in another thread...

Quote from: Shazbot79;412515I still like the base 4E rules, but I'm personally sick of the splatbook treadmill and the bloated mass of feats and powers that come along with it...which is why I'm switching my game to Essentials and Essentials only.

Watch in two years time (ie. late-2012), 4E Essentials-only will be another huge bloated mess of feats, powers, classes, etc ...  :rolleyes:

Quote from: Bobloblah;412518Do you also think the moon is made of green cheese?  Seanchai seemed to imply that these two went together in another thread...

The two lines are compatible for the most part, but the Essentials line itself will be self-contained.

However, the new line does mark the new direction in class design henceforth.

Quote from: ggroy;412519Watch in two years time (ie. late-2012), 4E Essentials-only will be another huge bloated mess of feats, powers, classes, etc ...  :rolleyes:

Yep...it most certainly will.

Maybe in the coming years someone will come up with something I like better.

I thought Essentials was an 8-product evergreen line without any planned additions to that?

Quote from: StormBringer;412467...in the provocative posts department, so I present to you:

Feeling 4tigued (http://www.rpgmusings.com/2010/10/feeling-4tigued/)

I got the link from my Tweeterer feed, and here are some pull quotes:

QuoteI think this starts with the most recent products. Essentials is giving the impression of D&D 4.5. Truth be told, I'm tired of fighting that perception because I'm starting to buy into it myself. It's not simply "Essentials = 4.5E" though. It's more "Rules Compendium as a repackaged rulebook featuring the truckton of errata we've compiled over 2 years feels very half-editionish."
My most tactically capable player, at the end of the night, stated flatly that he is really starting to dislike 4E and would really like to go back to 3.5. That's a bit of a shocker to me, considering he is really able to "game" the 4E system with his characters. He said he feels like he doesn't have the freedom to be creative and do things outside the "power" system in this edition, and I kind of understand his position.

This quote to me makes perfect sense. Both systems serve different purposes. In a way, 4e is more self-contained than 3.5. It's harder to build classes, paragon paths and all, but it does serve you with a ready-to-play tactical experience that is fine tuned to a specific game play. 3.5 if more fiddly, but you can play more with the game system, including playing with wacky elements, make up your own, expand on the system ad nauseam, and so on.

So it's no wonder to see someone driving intense pleasure from gaming the system get really effective in 4e, and at some point just wishing for a larger mechanical sandbox. It totally makes sense.

It's paradoxical. With 3.5, it seemed that at the same time it was being increasingly refined and polished with errata and new ideas, it was becoming less and less fun due to rules bloat. I'm the first to say that one doesn't have to use or allow to be used everything that is printed for the game, but a lot of the best material released for 3.5, especially near the end of its run, was flat-out improvements to the game. So, it was difficult to justify ignoring it all, while at the same time worrying about the game collapsing under its own weight. The same thing seems to be happening to 4e.

Something struck me in the linked-to blog. It's this:

QuoteI mentioned on Twitter that 4E feels a bit too "PCs Always Win" to me. Now it's not about "winning or losing" D&D that gets me. It's the lack of challenge so often. Granted, I'm a fairly "new" DM, having only been doing it since November 2009, so I tend to not be as forceful as I probably should. I possibly should have forced the dwarf out of the way in the interest of fairness. However, I got "gamed" and I let it happen to keep the game moving.

First and foremost, yeah, you're not being as forceful as you should be, especially if it seems to you, as DM, that the "PCs Always Win." As I've said over and over, I found it was amazingly easy as a 4e DM to wipe out a party of PCs. I was never the kind of "Killer DM" that is lampooned regularly in Knights of the Dinner Table, but I also seem to be tougher on PCs than a lot of more modern DMs.

I know that many people, especially around here, who started in the same era as I did will say they never had the type of adversarial relationship between players and DM that I experienced, but, y'know...Knights of the Dinner Table sure seems to have struck a chord with a lot of gamers, especially ones from the early-to-mid 1e era. I can't imagine that the "DM vs. PCs" relationship was all that rare back then. The game seemed to encourage it, I don't give a shit how much history gets revised.

My advice, and I know I will not get a lot of agreement here, is to beat the hell out of the PCs. TPK them if you can. You don't have to try that hard, and you don't even really have to do it deliberately. Just eyeball encounters rather than building them with the DDI tools. Stop worrying too much about whether they're balanced. 4e reminds me of 1e in a lot of ways, and one of the things 1e PCs learned pretty early on is that sometimes you gotta run. In the long run, it'll restore a sense of danger that is a big requirement for having fun with D&D.

It's weird. 4e seems to have provided a system almost perfectly suited for a "DM vs. PCs" type of game, yet at the same time there are tools and systems in place to keep it from happening.

Quote from: Tetsubo;412475But I have never understood the statement you made about 3.5. No rule makes it onto my gaming table without my permission as GM. Add all the rules and classes you want to, but not one of them will see use at my table unless I say it does. Is this an uncommon practice? Do most gamers just add new stuff in without any editing?

I shoulda finished it out, as it was implied in my mind.  The only 3.5 book I bought was the phb (used revised monster stats and prestige classes from SRD) because I could tell where it was headed.  When I run 3.5 (which isn't often any more) it's core plus house rules to model the campaign or core + 1 settting book, such as Eberron.  

WOTC tends to want the splats to be used so that they sell.  The really hardcore min/maxers tend to combine stuff from multiple books.  The munchkiny ones combine 3rd party with WOTC splat or stuff from two different 3rd party sources that were never meant to be combined.  These games give characters twice as powerful as core; those willing to buy hundreds of dollars in books and have nothing better to do than look at feats for days on end have a clear advantage over those who are actually interested in the campaign storyline.  Going core only nerfs that some.

Quote from: Angry_Douchebag;412506Yeah, fucking how so?  2007 and "early" 2008?  The core books didn't come out until June '08, dipshit.  They only leaked onto the net a little prior to that.

Yup, but "enthusiastic" reviews like this one (http://www.aintitcool.com/node/35776) came out a little bit earlier.

And one didn't even need to read it all. It only took gems like...

"At first glance there are a couple rule changes that will seem silly. 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 by the second session I didn't care. Why? No one EVER had to recount a movement"

...to understand that 4E was going to be the "Showgirls" of gaming: something so bad that they choose to blare its retardedness as the selling point.

BTW, almost every 4E debate I read is about the rules, but I seldom find someone criticizing the fluff - which is so retarded that it actually wanders in those territories that make the rules look smart. Cue the FR 4E.

Quote from: Reckall;412536BTW, almost every 4E debate I read is about the rules, but I seldom find someone criticizing the fluff - which is so retarded that it actually wanders in those territories that make the rules look smart. Cue the FR 4E.

I like 4E fluff. Not as much as mine, but I like it a hell of a lot better than 3rd Edition's Greyhawk fluff.  Don't give a shit about FR in any edition though.

What do you guys mean by "4e fluff"?

Quote from: ColonelHardisson;412530It's weird. 4e seems to have provided a system almost perfectly suited for a "DM vs. PCs" type of game, yet at the same time there are tools and systems in place to keep it from happening.

Well getting away from the controversial "4e is kinda like 1e" you were talking about, I'd say that I actually agree with that last sentence. There are a lot of good things in 4e that could play out really well with a 1e DM mindset. That's what I'm seeing right now when I look at Essentials D&D. But like you say, there's a whole set of tools and safeguards and let's face it, a whole gaming culture too surrounding them (balance uber alles etc) that sort of keeps that from happening.

There's a very, very good game in there, and it looks like it's trying to break free from the bullshit strangling it from all sides, without and within.

Quote from: Peregrin;412526I thought Essentials was an 8-product evergreen line without any planned additions to that?

I'd say this depends on how well it does...

Quote from: Shazbot79;412525Yep...it most certainly will.

Maybe in the coming years someone will come up with something I like better.

By the time the messy bloat is achieved, 5E D&D will be ready to be released.

If Mike Mearls' name is showing up less and less on upcoming D&D books/box sets/etc ..., most likely he is working on 5E D&D.  If history is any guide, it will take three years from start to release date of 5E D&D, if the system is very different from 4E.  On an accelerated schedule, who knows?  Maybe it will take them two years this time to crank out a 5E D&D?

Quote from: ggroy;412563By the time the messy bloat is achieved, 5E D&D will be ready to be released.

If Mike Mearls' name is showing up less and less on upcoming D&D books/box sets/etc ..., most likely he is working on 5E D&D.  If history is any guide, it will take three years from start to release date of 5E D&D, if the system is very different from 4E.  On an accelerated schedule, who knows?  Maybe it will take them two years this time to crank out a 5E D&D?

I think it will be slightly longer than that.

My theory is that 4E is a kind of beta test for 5th Edition. I mean, after two years of consumer feedback we see a major shift in design philosophy halfway through? Has that even happened with any other edition? I suspect that WotC won't begin work on 5th edition until the numbers are in on Essentials at the very least.

I would say however, that if you're correct we'll catch a little glimpse of proto-5E concepts later in the year when the Ravenloft RPG comes out, and the rumored Marvel Superheroes RPG.

Quote from: Shazbot79;412569I would say however, that if you're correct we'll catch a little glimpse of proto-5E concepts later in the year when the Ravenloft RPG comes out, and the rumored Marvel Superheroes RPG.

Or for that matter, Gamma World.

For example, the Gamma World stats are generated:

Primary stat = 18.  Secondary stat = 16.  Roll 3d6 for each of the rest of the stats.


For a one-trick-pony class (such as a rogue):  Primary stat = 20, roll 3d6 for each of the rest of the stats.

Quote from: Shazbot79;412569I suspect that WotC won't begin work on 5th edition until the numbers are in on Essentials at the very least.

Maybe 5E design and development is already in progress, where 4E Essentials is the prototype at the moment?

The next 5E prototype we will see, will most likely be the "Heroes of Shadow" book.

For example, if one starts off with a generic Martial class, how does one modify it to have "shadow power" elements.  If they're able to pull something like that off without being broken, then it wouldn't be surprising if they did the same thing with the other powers (ie. primal, elemental, psionic, divine, etc ...).

So something like the barbarian could be a martial fighter slayer, with "primal" power stuff modifying it.  A warden could be a martial fighter knight, with "primal" power stuff modifying it.

Quote from: ggroy;412572The next 5E prototype we will see, will most likely be the "Heroes of Shadow" book.

For example, if one starts off with a generic Martial class, how does one modify it to have "shadow power" elements.  If they're able to pull something like that off without being broken, then it wouldn't be surprising if they did the same thing with the other powers (ie. primal, elemental, psionic, divine, etc ...).

So something like the barbarian could be a martial fighter slayer, with "primal" power stuff modifying it.  A warden could be a martial fighter knight, with "primal" power stuff modifying it.

I think that the Heroes of Shadow book is just dark-themed builds for essentials classes...

Like a Shadow Pact build for Hexblades, Necromancy school for Mages, Darkness Domain for Warpriests, etc.

The Essentials stuff is actually pretty easy to mix and match...it wouldn't be terribly difficult for me to combine a Slayer and a Cavalier to get an Avenger.

Quote from: Bobloblah;412518Do you also think the moon is made of green cheese?  Seanchai seemed to imply that these two went together in another thread...

If you're using Essentials only, you're using only Essentials builds. If I said you could only use character classes out of one of the 3e sourcebooks, would we suddenly not be playing 3e?

Seanchai

Quote from: ColonelHardisson;412530I can't imagine that the "DM vs. PCs" relationship was all that rare back then. The game seemed to encourage it, I don't give a shit how much history gets revised.

Male teens are going to make any game adversarial.

Quote from: Settembrini;412491Are you guys stupid? If you could read, you would have seen that the underlying problem is the tactical illusionism of 4e coupled to its obesity scooter difficulty level philosophy.

I told everyone back in 2007. But that does not matter. What matters now is that some people are too stupid to read.

Quote from: Settembrini;412493Meanwhile, on a cosmic level, WotC fails miserably. And there cannot be any excuse for that: DDI. This is the Death Spiral already in action for 4e. There can be no doubt about it.

Gosh, I had forgotten how fun this guy can get.

I'm cool with Doomsaying. Doomsayers have been wrong about everything, ever, since the dawn of time. Sett is no exception, but he's thrice as crazy.

On a cosmic level, the WotC executives are earning big fat cash while you masturbate looking at your old RIFTS books and trying to force a poorly-understood philosophy in your insane theories about whatis the One True Way of Gaming, so you look as an informed person instead of a deranged mongrel throwing feces and shouting to the people passing by, from the cave you live in. You are far more pretentious than anything ever produced by the Forge, WW, or, I don't know, anyone ever.

On a business level, where most people lives, WotC are doing a bang - up job, given they are profitable, and that is the point of it. Actually, if they get to publish a 5th edition of D&D, it would be an even stronger sign of how well they're doing.

Quote from: ColonelHardisson;412530As I've said over and over, I found it was amazingly easy as a 4e DM to wipe out a party of PCs. I was never the kind of "Killer DM" that is lampooned regularly in Knights of the Dinner Table, but I also seem to be tougher on PCs than a lot of more modern DMs.

Pseudoephedrine (I think it was him) told many times that his first 4e games were almost TPKs. Many of the critics against the game have been thrown by people without atual play experience.

Quote from: Imperator;412603On a cosmic level, the WotC executives are earning big fat cash while you masturbate looking at your old RIFTS books and trying to force a poorly-understood philosophy in your insane theories about whatis the One True Way of Gaming

On a cosmic level, Lehman Brothers executives were earning big fat cash while we masturbate looking at our old BASIC COMMON SENSE books and trying to force a poorly-understood philosophy in our insane theories about what is the One True Way of Investing (like: lending money to people that cannot pay you back is not smart). It didn't ended well.

On a related note, I would like to know what TSR executives who derided doomsayers are thinking now.

Quote from: Reckall;412611On a cosmic level, Lehman Brothers executives were earning big fat cash while we masturbate looking at our old BASIC COMMON SENSE books and trying to force a poorly-understood philosophy in our insane theories about what is the One True Way of Investing (like: lending money to people that cannot pay you back is not smart). It didn't ended well.

On a related note, I would like to know what TSR executives who derided doomsayers are thinking now.

I don't think that is a valid comparison. You are comparing a criminal activity (lying about your accountability) with not pleasing a sector of the fandom. For fuck's sake.

And again, I have yet to hear a comprehensive and accurate, no wild especulation, about what went wrong in TSR and why it was acquired by WotC.

Seriously, I've been hearing about the death of D&D since I started in this hobby. It won't happen. If WotC launched the 5th ed, and it was just a smear of shit on towel paper, and angry fans rampaged through the WotC offices and killed everyone, it wouldn't be the end of D&D.

So the Death Spiral Prophecies of Sett are unadulterated bullshit. As usual. While he moans and bitches, the rest of the world keeps playing and having fun.

Quote from: Imperator;412616I don't think that is a valid comparison. You are comparing a criminal activity (lying about your accountability)

Cite?

Lehman went down due to it's overexposure to the subprime market. I.e. mismanagement & idiocy, not criminal activity.

Quotewith not pleasing a sector of the fandom. For fuck's sake.

I guess that fans of Lehman who saw where Lehman was going were not pleased, too. Not that this kind of situations stops executives from writing "fat checks" for themselves. Or things to go bad, for what matters.

QuoteAnd again, I have yet to hear a comprehensive and accurate, no wild especulation, about what went wrong in TSR and why it was acquired by WotC.

http://uk.pc.gamespy.com/articles/539/539628p1.html

Quote from: Reckall;412631http://uk.pc.gamespy.com/articles/539/539628p1.html

Bad article, IMO. Some parts are lumped together that shouldn't (FR and DragonLance leading to Birthright and Darksun vs. White Wolf in the same paragraph), and some bias shows up there that really shouldn't ("Unfortunately, the 2nd Edition rules annoyed almost as many players as they pleased, mostly because the amount of revision and correction was not that extensive and might have been"). Bad summary.

Quote from: Seanchai;412595If you're using Essentials only, you're using only Essentials builds. If I said you could only use character classes out of one of the 3e sourcebooks, would we suddenly not be playing 3e?

Seanchai

As I recall, the conversation was about people switching to Essentials only, and whether or not it constituted a new edition. I mentioned that I have seen a surprising number of people saying that they were going to drop 4E and play Essentials only, and that many of these felt it was a new stealth edition, to which you replied that you could find people saying the moon is green cheese. Lo and behold, one of the people switching is on this board. Does Shazbot consider it a new edition? Who knows. Who cares? He seems to be treating as such.

Would it be a new edition if it had different versions of the classes and a bunch of subtle rule changes, many of which were culled from errata, plus no longer required me to buy the previous rulebooks to play? Sounds like 3.5 to me...and Essentials, for that matter; not so much like a sourcebook.

While we're on this topic, if 3.0 had DDI, with all the 3.5 changes in as errata, then 3.5 was actually released as Essentials 3.0...would it have been a new edition?

Ultimately, I don't even particularly care if Essentials is a new edition; I'm more interested in playing it than 4E.

Quote from: Bobloblah;412634Would it be a new edition if it had different versions of the classes and a bunch of subtle rule changes, many of which were culled from errata, plus no longer required me to buy the previous rulebooks to play? Sounds like 3.5 to me...and Essentials, for that matter; not so much like a sourcebook.

QF-freakin'-T.

Back to the Op, I certainly felt the 4tigue, the fights just get sooooo tedious after a while. Now that we've switched to clunky, minimalist AD&D, my players are all saying how much they don't like 4e, and were only playing it because they thought it was what I wanted to run...which was odd, because at the time, I was running it because that's what I thought they all wanted to play.

Quote from: Bobloblah;412634As I recall, the conversation was about people switching to Essentials only, and whether or not it constituted a new edition.

I could have sworn it was about whether or not Essentials counted as 4e when weighing which was selling more, 4e or Pathfinder...

Quote from: Bobloblah;412634I mentioned that I have seen a surprising number of people saying that they were going to drop 4E and play Essentials only, and that many of these felt it was a new stealth edition....

Which is analogous in 3.5 terms to saying, "I'm just running the game with the core books from now on."

Quote from: Bobloblah;412634Would it be a new edition if it had different versions of the classes and a bunch of subtle rule changes, many of which were culled from errata, plus no longer required me to buy the previous rulebooks to play? Sounds like 3.5 to me...

That's odd. I thought 3.5 made some rather substantial changes. I'd have thought that, along with WotC saying, "Hey, here's a new edition," which made it a new edition.

Quote from: Bobloblah;412634Ultimately, I don't even particularly care if Essentials is a new edition; I'm more interested in playing it than 4E.

As I told Benoist, surprise! If you ever get around to buying and/or playing it, you'll be purchasing or playing 4e. Essentials matters only as a label, as a means of getting people to try 4e without the baggage the name 4e has tied to it. Kind of like what Microsoft did with Vista.

Seanchai

Quote from: Seanchai;412645I could have sworn it was about whether or not Essentials counted as 4e when weighing which was selling more, 4e or Pathfinder...

Considering I was responding to you, I am of course referring to the conversation you and I were actually having during our little back and forth - as opposed to the conversation someone else was having.

Quote from: Seanchai;412645Which is analogous in 3.5 terms to saying, "I'm just running the game with the core books from now on."

Except, of course, that the core books are different books than the Essentials books. But hey, whatever.

Quote from: Seanchai;412645That's odd. I thought 3.5 made some rather substantial changes. I'd have thought that, along with WotC saying, "Hey, here's a new edition," which made it a new edition.

...and if the criteria is whether or not WoTC calls it a new edition, the discussion is pretty much pointless.  As I mentioned before, they learned their lesson with 3.5, and will not call something a new edition, regardless of what it is, until they have no choice.

Quote from: Seanchai;412645As I told Benoist, surprise! If you ever get around to buying and/or playing it, you'll be purchasing or playing 4e. Essentials matters only as a label, as a means of getting people to try 4e without the baggage the name 4e has tied to it. Kind of like what Microsoft did with Vista.

Seanchai

Again, it seems that there are a lot of people out there who disagree with you, and I'm not sure why I should believe you, instead.  As for the Vista comment, are you referring to Vista vs Win7? Win7 is obviously built on top of the Vista infrastructure, but there are plenty of changes to go around.

Quote from: Reckall;412536Yup, but "enthusiastic" reviews like this one (http://www.aintitcool.com/node/35776) came out a little bit earlier.

And one didn't even need to read it all. It only took gems like...

"At first glance there are a couple rule changes that will seem silly. 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 by the second session I didn't care. Why? No one EVER had to recount a movement"

...to understand that 4E was going to be the "Showgirls" of gaming: something so bad that they choose to blare its retardedness as the selling point.

BTW, almost every 4E debate I read is about the rules, but I seldom find someone criticizing the fluff - which is so retarded that it actually wanders in those territories that make the rules look smart. Cue the FR 4E.

At least you can tell from the post that the author has a functional understanding of the product he's reviewing; we've never seen anything of the sort from Settembrini.  his only purpose is to deride people and attempt to sound informed by using made up terminology whose meaning is only known to him.

That said, I know there were a shit ton of people who decided that 4e was the Jesus game based on the tidbit previews that were released as well.  The sour note they set the tone with kept me from trying out 4e for nearly a year.

Just a thought on the "new edition" vs. "more of the same" debate, I'd say that the main thing causing me to view Essentials as new editionish is the changes to the power structure of the martial characters. Despite the fact that they appear to be completely compatible with the original printed PHB (which is the only original 4e book I own), I'd at least go so far as to say Essentials includes new editions of the martial classes. Other than that, I have no dog in this hunt because I don't really care what anyone calls the various books/versions.

Quote from: Angry_Douchebag;412658At least you can tell from the post that the author has a functional understanding of the product he's reviewing; we've never seen anything of the sort from Settembrini.  his only purpose is to deride people and attempt to sound informed by using made up terminology whose meaning is only known to him.

There's people whose MO is this.

I've known people who automatically "review" a book as being crap, without ever reading the book at all.

In practice there isn't much anybody can do about this, short of either ignoring the person in question or outright murdering them in person.

Quote from: Bobloblah;412656Considering I was responding to you, I am of course referring to the conversation you and I were actually having during our little back and forth...

Yeah, the one about whether or not Essentials is a 4e product.

Quote from: Bobloblah;412656Again, it seems that there are a lot of people out there who disagree with you...

And there are just as many who agree with me. If your basis for deciding the veracity of a statement is whether or not you can find someone to disagree with it, er, that seems...interesting.

Of course, that isn't the basis you use. So why do you keep bringing it up? Either you know something I don't - and I'm actually playing 4e and an Essentials character - or you're just pointing to things others have said because you want to discredit the idea but don't have any knowledge or experience with which to do so...

Quote from: Bobloblah;412656As for the Vista comment, are you referring to Vista vs Win7?

I'm referring to Window's marketing campaign where they told folks to rate a new OS they were developing. When the folks gave it high marks, they said, "Surprise! There isn't a new OS - this is Vista. See, you only think you don't like it."

Seanchai

Quote from: Bobloblah;412656Again, it seems that there are a lot of people out there who disagree with you, and I'm not sure why I should believe you, instead.  As for the Vista comment, are you referring to Vista vs Win7? Win7 is obviously built on top of the Vista infrastructure, but there are plenty of changes to go around.

As the resident 'Linux or Death' junkie, I would like to further add that Vista = complete shit, while Win7 is the motherfucking bomb.  Kudos to the guys in Redmond, they did actually make a useful operating system from the pile of rotting shit that was Vista.

How any particular reader applies that to 4e vs Essentials is entirely up to them.  :)

Quote from: Imperator;412603Pseudoephedrine (I think it was him) told many times that his first 4e games were almost TPKs.

Mirrors my experience as well.  We lost a ton of PCs in the first 5-10 sessions in our playtest of 4e back in '08, and that's with encounters balanced BtB.

Quote from: Reckall;412631Cite?

Lehman went down due to it's overexposure to the subprime market. I.e. mismanagement & idiocy, not criminal activity.

Maybe he was thinking of Enron or something?
I didn't really grasp the intricacies of what went on with Lehman bros. that led to our current economic collapse, but I don't seem to recall anyone saying they lied.

WoTC, on the other hand, most definitely did lie.


So, yes, I guess I'm saying they're worse than Lehman Brothers.

RPGPundit