Quote from: thedungeondelver;427278D&D4 is 30 minutes of fun crammed into four hours.

Threads like these prove that the same criticisms get recycled for every edition. For those who don't know, the above is close to being a quote from Ryan Dancey, who posted it on Mike Mearls' Livejournal five years ago (which, of course, was a good while before 4e). He was quoting Dave Wise's wife, who made the observation after watching a gaming session for an earlier edition - I'm guessing 3e, but the context of the quote isn't entirely clear.

Quote from: Danger;427293D&D4e = prison sodomy (minus the pack of menthols and the security of being someone's bitch)....from what I've heard.

Well between the two I've only experienced 4e, but I'll say that if the DA gave me a choice between 6 months of playing 4e and 6 months of prison, I'm re-upping my DDI subscription.

But then, I don't smoke.

Quote from: Danger;427293D&D4e = prison sodomy (minus the pack of menthols and the security of being someone's bitch)....from what I've heard.

So you're saying you haven't played 4e yet? :teehee:

Quote from: ColonelHardisson;427297Threads like these prove that the same criticisms get recycled for every edition. For those who don't know, the above is close to being a quote from Ryan Dancey, who posted it on Mike Mearls' Livejournal five years ago (which, of course, was a good while before 4e). He was quoting Dave Wise's wife, who made the observation after watching a gaming session for an earlier edition - I'm guessing 3e, but the context of the quote isn't entirely clear.

Actually it came from an article about Wizards' corporate history where the first demo of Magic: The Gathering for investors was being described.

That's where I first heard it, anyway.

Basically it just proves that people get tired of "upgrading" eventually, and due to the wonders of the internet, can tell everyone else about it.

When 5e gets published in 2 years, we'll hear the crying of the current 4e players.

Upgrading?  4e?

Quantitative superiority is next to non-existant when it comes to game design.

Now if you mean changing a product enough that it is completely incompatible with the product the customer already has in order to ensure room to sell them more product, well 4e certainly was an upgrade for someone.

I picked up the D&D Starter Set when it appeared at my favorite used book store last week (Yes, I think 4E sucks, but I try to keep an open mind). I've been messing with it and I think the only thing they got right was the price point. The 4E structure that I didn't like is still there to still not like.

Thing is, I've been introducing people to Basic D&D at the bar and they are really taking a shine to it because it is elegantly simple. If the D&D Starter Set had more in common with Basic D&D than just the cover art, this could really rock. Instead, it looks like a deliberate attempt to just rearrange the pieces of 4E's Keep on the Shadowfell / QuickStart Rules to be more palatable and no matter how thin you slice it, it is still baloney.

I'm going to salvage the dice and the map from this, but that is about all I've found of use.

...because it already has, and that's pretty much all there is to it. I'm not seeing any movement on the 4e hardcovers in my FLGS, they're not even being fondled. I mean, it's CHRISTMAS and WOTC doesn't think there's any 4e product that could be profitably be released for the holiday.

It's Essentials, now, and I wish it the best. I'm sticking with AD&D for the time being.

Another thing- they kept the idea of alignments, then neutered it. They literally removed the two most interesting alignments in the game. A chaotic evil villain is rarely compelling at the table to the point where the players themselves hate him. Usually, at most he "needs to be stopped". The truly classic villains in my experience tend towards Lawful evil- evil geniuses, corrupt kings, etc. To truly be a hypocrite, and thus have the *players* hate you, you have to use the letter of the law in your own favor.  Similarly, another way to be hated is the freedom to act evilly with impunity- what you're doing is technically legal.

As a foil to this kind of villain a chaotic good character is one of the few who can cut through the red tape bullshit and get some of that old fashioned justice. This is incredibly satisfying- when the chaotic good characters have the villain cornered and he pleads or threatens based on an assumption that they are law abiding citizens. The moment he realizes they're not is the stuff memorable campaigns are made of.

So of course, 4e gets rid of these two alignments. Wouldn't want the game to actually have some drama.

I'm definitely trying to present a case here but I don't believe that the only interesting good guys are chaotic good  or that the only interesting bad guys are lawful evil. I just personally find these two alignments easier to work with quickly. They practically sketch the first lines of a personality.

Quote from: Monster Manuel;427348Another thing- they kept the idea of alignments, then neutered it.

Chaotic Good and Lawful Evil didn't go anywhere. The Good alignment conflates Chaotic Good and Neutral Good; the Evil alignment, in a similar vein, encompasses Lawful Evil and Neutral Evil.

If I'd been the one doing the redesign, I'd just call them Good "Chaotic Good", and Evil "Lawful Evil".

That didn't bother me, but then again, I've always had a very laissez-faire approach to alignments. These have always been an afterthought to me. I've always been partial to the original, single-axis, Lawful/Neutral/Chaotic split, and for the better part of my gaming life I've ignored alignment languages, know alignment, and even in AD&D I've used detect evil as per the D&D RC/BECMI description (i.e. more of a "detect danger" than a "detect evil alignment" spell). And I'm an enthusiast of Jeff Rients' Threefold Apocalyptic Alignment Test. So take my advice in alignments with a grain of salt.

Quote from: Doom;427327...because it already has, and that's pretty much all there is to it.

Maybe it's just the online doomsaying, but I sometimes get that feeling as well. It's sad, really, because regardless of my own feelings on 4e, I don't think anyone in their right minds wants to see the industry's premier IP tank.

Not having actual sales figures, we are left to speculate based on scattered anecdotal evidence, and to fear for the hobby's future.

Quote from: The Butcher;427357I don't think anyone in their right minds wants to see the industry's premier IP tank.

Not so sure about this.

Some people are not driven at all by money or business reasons, but motivated more by "ideological" reasons.  These are the people who greatly enjoy watching things they hate, become failures.  (Even in cases where they have absolutely nothing to gain monetarily).

In another niche or genre, such individuals could be regarded as "fanatics".

Quote from: ggroy;427360Not so sure about this.

Some people are not driven at all by money or business reasons, but motivated more by "ideological" reasons.  These are the people who greatly enjoy watching things they hate, become failures.  (Even in cases where they have absolutely nothing to gain monetarily).

In another niche or genre, such individuals could be regarded as "fanatics".

I know this wasn't directed at me, but I'd like to use it as a jumping off point.

I don't hate D&D or WotC or want either to fail. I'm not fond of Hasbro, but I love D&D. I just want it to become the game I loved again; preferably with a new edition. I'd love to see a cleaner version of 3e, with the flavor sensibilities of 2e and earlier. The original red box hit things pretty well, but I'd have liked a greater sense of scope. Rules light, I guess, but just tons and tons of options for classes, races, etc. AD&D/D&D3 style Races and Classes, but a simpler game. Something like a basic Pathfinder, really.

Quote from: ggroy;427360Not so sure about this.

Some people are not driven at all by money or business reasons, but motivated more by "ideological" reasons.  These are the people who greatly enjoy watching things they hate, become failures.  (Even in cases where they have absolutely nothing to gain monetarily).

In another niche or genre, such individuals could be regarded as "fanatics".

Well, that's not my take at all.  My feeling is that D&D has always just about always been in bad hands.  Whether it was the Blumes insisting on more wargamey elements (which I like incidentally) or Lorraine Williams raping TSR for money, or WotC and Hasbro trying to change it from a great game into a great money maker, the IP has always been in bad hands.  I've never quite been able to wrap my head around people's loyalty to it.

Mind you, if D&D went down it might be rough on gaming stores and distributors but not catostrophic.  I would suspect their existing stocks would vanish pretty quickly as hard core fans snached up the books they didn't get yet.  Unfortunately I doubt the retail market would go looking for the next big rpg unless a solid contender would appear.  Though, it might be Pathfinder is doing well enough that they'd just expand into the void.

Quote from: Monster Manuel;427361Rules light, I guess, but just tons and tons of options for classes, races, etc. AD&D/D&D3 style Races and Classes, but a simpler game. Something like a basic Pathfinder, really.

Actually that's an interesting point.  Outside of Castles and Crusades, when has D&D ever had an edition that was simple but had lots of options?
They've always gone with stripping down the options with the rules.