Quote from: Sigmund;365986What I wonder is why anyone gives a fuck. Unlike most people, I never much liked Erol Otus' art, but even if I did I wouldn't give any more of a fuck what he is playing than he would about what I'm playing.

I also do think that his art is dreadful.

Quote from: Sigmund;365991Nothing they do would surprise me, because I don't know them. They could be gay furry-lovers who believe Elvis lives next door to them and that wouldn't surprise me either.

Quote from: Windjammer;365992I think Steve Winter is on record for saying that he likes 4E of all the follow ups to Basic D&D most - because it's the one that gets closest to Basic, which is his favourite edition.

I have a very similar opinion. I think that D&D 4e is more D&D than ever since BECMI D&D.

Quote from: Imperator;366002I have a very similar opinion. I think that D&D 4e is more D&D than ever since BECMI D&D.

I just don't get this at all. I do see how they might have wanted to make it this way, and how they were aiming in that direction, but all I see is utter failure in that regard. The games play so differently, IME, that I have a hard time even reconciling that they're called the same thing. The tactical complexity of 4e is orders of magnitude different than the fast and abstract combats of early editions. All I see in 4e is an extreme version of 3e, dumbed down in places and ramped up in others. I'm honestly curious, where do you guys get this idea about 4e being so similar to od&d or BECMI? Is it just the whole dungeon crawl focus thing? That alone hardly qualifies as making the games similar in any way.

Well- having thought a good boxed set would help expand the hobby- I gotta say this hits all the bullet points such a product needs:

1. Complete, with multiple levels of advancement
2. Cheap, at less than 20 bucks
3. Boxed set, so it can go in with board games or books
4. Clear upgrade path

So Wizards has done everything they need to do to get the game out to the masses again.

Here's hoping it succeeds.

Quote from: RPGObjects_chuck;366026Well- having thought a good boxed set would help expand the hobby- I gotta say this hits all the bullet points such a product needs:

1. Complete, with multiple levels of advancement
2. Cheap, at less than 20 bucks
3. Boxed set, so it can go in with board games or books
4. Clear upgrade path

So Wizards has done everything they need to do to get the game out to the masses again.

Here's hoping it succeeds.

I agree, and hope that the subsequent box sets expand on what the initial release presents so I don't have to then also buy the hard covers to progress beyond the basic start provided initially, in which case I think it can very much be a winner for DnD.

Quote from: Sigmund;366018The games play so differently, IME, that I have a hard time even reconciling that they're called the same thing. The tactical complexity of 4e is orders of magnitude different than the fast and abstract combats of early editions. All I see in 4e is an extreme version of 3e, dumbed down in places and ramped up in others. I'm honestly curious, where do you guys get this idea about 4e being so similar to od&d or BECMI? Is it just the whole dungeon crawl focus thing? That alone hardly qualifies as making the games similar in any way.

But for me it does. After all, the tactical complexity of 3e is orders of magnitude different than OD&D's. And I didn't see people throwing themselves out of windows, shouting that 3e was the end of the hobby. Maybe around Spain we're less prone to that.

D&D never had a skill system. In 3e you have Feats and skills. You can build your PC all the wayfrom 1st level to the 20th knowing which build you will use.  You have AoO and many things that use a battlemat. That's radically different from OD&D or BECMI or even AD&D. But no one disputes that 3e is D&D.

Maybe I'm wrong. Probably we had the same outrage in 2000 when D&3e was published and all the grognards went ballistic. Heck, probably there was a similar outrage when AD&D 2e came out.

D&D is a game about people going into an insanely dangerous place, often abandoned, fighting monsters and looking for treasure. That hasn't changed. It's right there, streamlined and adapted to this age sensibility's and zeitgeist, but it's the same. Cave. Dragon. Treasure. You know the drill.

Quote from: Sigmund;366018I just don't get this at all. I do see how they might have wanted to make it this way, and how they were aiming in that direction, but all I see is utter failure in that regard. The games play so differently, IME, that I have a hard time even reconciling that they're called the same thing. The tactical complexity of 4e is orders of magnitude different than the fast and abstract combats of early editions. All I see in 4e is an extreme version of 3e, dumbed down in places and ramped up in others. I'm honestly curious, where do you guys get this idea about 4e being so similar to od&d or BECMI? Is it just the whole dungeon crawl focus thing? That alone hardly qualifies as making the games similar in any way.

Ditto. Could make a new thread?
Though it is directly related to a new Red Box and thus whether Mentzer and 4e can even compare.

Quote from: Imperator;366061D&D is a game about people going into an insanely dangerous place, often abandoned, fighting monsters and looking for treasure. That hasn't changed. It's right there, streamlined and adapted to this age sensibility's and zeitgeist, but it's the same. Cave. Dragon. Treasure. You know the drill.

True, but 4e abandons the traditional focus on some of the minor sim bits to focus almost solely on gameplay.  It is unashamedly a game through-and-through, and it lets you know it.  You end up with something leaner and meaner, and perhaps overall a better design, but that's not what everyone wants, and it's a far cry from the old-school games (as I see them, as a younger gamer).

So it's really no surprise that a lot of people don't like it.  It's inherently less tweakable than older editions because they had to make it sturdy, and it's really hard to do anything but adventure-path D&D with it.  4e knows what it is, what it wants to do, and is better at doing the things it was designed to, but not so good as a toolbox.

I personally don't like it for long-term play.  Not enough focus on either world-sim, or on story (two of my favorite focuses).  I find it extremely fun for mini-series type deals and skirmishes, though.

Quote from: Imperator;366061But for me it does. After all, the tactical complexity of 3e is orders of magnitude different than OD&D's. And I didn't see people throwing themselves out of windows, shouting that 3e was the end of the hobby. Maybe around Spain we're less prone to that.

No, I agree. The tactical complexity is the least of my complaints about 4e, most times I don't mind it at all. The only reason I bring it up is because it is the main reason 4e plays absolutely nothing like OD&D or BECMI or Holmes or even AD&D for me.

QuoteD&D never had a skill system. In 3e you have Feats and skills. You can build your PC all the wayfrom 1st level to the 20th knowing which build you will use.  You have AoO and many things that use a battlemat. That's radically different from OD&D or BECMI or even AD&D. But no one disputes that 3e is D&D.

Nor am I. Nor am I saying 4e is not DnD. I am saying it is not only not the same DnD as OD&D or BECMI, it's not even remotely similar in how it plays.

QuoteMaybe I'm wrong. Probably we had the same outrage in 2000 when D&3e was published and all the grognards went ballistic. Heck, probably there was a similar outrage when AD&D 2e came out.

Probably, you'd have to ask the outraged folks about that.

QuoteD&D is a game about people going into an insanely dangerous place, often abandoned, fighting monsters and looking for treasure. That hasn't changed. It's right there, streamlined and adapted to this age sensibility's and zeitgeist, but it's the same. Cave. Dragon. Treasure. You know the drill.

Yes, the basic premise is the same, but then so is the basic premise of Dragonquest, Iron Gauntlets, and Earthdawn. I wouldn't call them "just like OD&D either. It's not about the basic premise, it's about how you go about doing things in the game. It's how it plays at the table. I've played all these games and more and I stand by my opinion that 4e played nothing like pre-3e DnD, and is actually much more like a tweaked and simplified 3e than any other edition. Now I have not DMed 4e, so from that side of the screen things might be a little different. Just in my experience as a player though I can provide an example. When I gamed at the Boy's Club in Norfolk Va in the early '80s, I remember playing through the entire module Hidden Shrine of the Tamoachan in one night. However, playing 4e, we would be lucky to get more than 2 fights and the attendant aftermath and maneuvering in during a 4-6 hour session. Even streamlining and advance preparation are not enough to use 4e to repeat the experience of finishing an entire dungeon module in one 4-6 hour session, at least not the way we played it. Notice, I'm not attaching any value judgments on this at all, just saying that 4e's increased tactical options cause the fights to take longer, thereby providing a very different experience to pre-3e editions of DnD, especially the basic editions.

Quote from: Benoist;366062Ditto. Could make a new thread?
Though it is directly related to a new Red Box and thus whether Mentzer and 4e can even compare.

I see it as on-topic, but if anyone in the thread thinks it really isn't we can absolutely discuss it elsewhere.

I've compared 4E to BECMI simply because it's faster to run at the table than 3.x, with less frequent reference to the books.  The similarities end there, though.

Quote from: Peregrin;366066True, but 4e abandons the traditional focus on some of the minor sim bits to focus almost solely on gameplay.  It is unashamedly a game through-and-through, and it lets you know it.  You end up with something leaner and meaner, and perhaps overall a better design, but that's not what everyone wants, and it's a far cry from the old-school games (as I see them, as a younger gamer).

So it's really no surprise that a lot of people don't like it.  It's inherently less tweakable than older editions because they had to make it sturdy, and it's really hard to do anything but adventure-path D&D with it.  4e knows what it is, what it wants to do, and is better at doing the things it was designed to, but not so good as a toolbox.

I personally don't like it for long-term play.  Not enough focus on either world-sim, or on story (two of my favorite focuses).  I find it extremely fun for mini-series type deals and skirmishes, though.

Also, I'd still say that "better design" is very subjective. I don't find it better at all. The disassociated nature of the power mechanics are very jarring for me in actual play and I have been left extremely disappointed by the experience. I truly struggle to view my character as a person in an imaginary world rather than stats on a piece of paper.

I haven't followed this thread for long. Two things I take away from this.

1. Pseudoephedrine getting on Benoists ignore list for a good reason. Hadn't foreseen this. Quite sad. Even before Melan showed up, which made it only more solid.

2. AM shatters the hilarity meter. So anyone posting a critique of 4E's design tenets is ipso facto assaulting an old guy somewhere in the Northeastern US, who's only shown w.r.t waist area to protect the innocent. His innocence, actually.

I'm impressed. Lemme try to spin this my own way. Please stop saying that 3E's Dungeonpunk aesthetics are just indiluted poor taste - by extenuation, stop saying that the first D&D movie sucked balls - and that its rules are a clunky paradise for optimizers. Otherwise I feel ashamed for playing 3E and you're actively shitting on My Hobby.

Quote from: Windjammer;3661352. AM shatters the hilarity meter. So anyone posting a critique of 4E's design tenets is ipso facto assaulting an old guy somewhere in the Northeastern US, who's only shown w.r.t waist area to protect the innocent. His innocence, actually.

I'm impressed. Lemme try to spin this my own way. Please stop saying that 3E's Dungeonpunk aesthetics are just indiluted poor taste - by extenuation, stop saying that the first D&D movie sucked balls - and that its rules are a clunky paradise for optimizers. Otherwise I feel ashamed for playing 3E and you're actively shitting on My Hobby.

I think you misunderstand me (and I kinda like the Dungeonpunk aesthetics). I think that people who hate *me* enough to stalk me from forum to forum are going to take it out on my innocent friend Tom, and I was trying to avoid that situation, but at the same time, I wanted to show that real people of all ages play D&D4e.  


I have a funny story (well I think it was funny) about the D&D movie too. If you are interested.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;366137I think that people who hate *me* enough to stalk me from forum to forum are going to take it out on my innocent friend Tom...

Your paranoia and over weening self importance are flaring up again.  You simply aren't that important.  As I said before, when you stop saying stupid shit, I will stop pointing out that you are saying stupid shit.

And don't try to pretend you were talking about someone else and I am being oversensitive or something.  This is your biggest complaint, yet you spend restless hours quote mining forums from a decade back to go after someone, so your complaint here is disingenuous, were I to be in a generous mood.  I'm not, so I will simply point out the rank hypocrisy you display.

And I don't give a shit about your friend Tom, and again, neither did you until Kyle gave you another facet of your paranoid delusion to exploit.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;366137I have a funny story (well I think it was funny) about the D&D movie too. If you are interested.

I AM!!! But I'd prefer to work into a series of Yes/No questions if the result turns out to be you making a guest appearance of sorts in the movie, and me trying to figure out where it is. Short of that, I suggest you simply telling me your story.

Btw, I like both D&D movies (the first one only 20 minutes in, but hey, I still like some of it), own the second one on DVD, so I guess I've got little to lose by hearing another earth shattering behind-the-scene secret about them.