D&D 4E 4e PHB Chapter by Chapter

[mxyzplk]

Thank you for your opinion. I guess we won't see you in the 4e forum anymore then?

Most likely. I'll grind through the DMG and MM to see what's there next, but at this point I'm thinking going Pathfinder would be better for me.

 

[Maximillian]

Sorry teh ghey makes you ignore all the actual information in the reviews. Or is it just a gambit to dismiss a differing opinion?

Actually, to be fair, I'm glad someone pointed out that you make arguments based on how "gay" things are before I bothered to read it.

Seriously, you can't expect anyone to take your opinions seriously if their going to be couched in terms of prejudice.

 

[mxyzplk]

Actually, to be fair, I'm glad someone pointed out that you make arguments based on how "gay" things are before I bothered to read it.

Seriously, you can't expect anyone to take your opinions seriously if their going to be couched in terms of prejudice.

Congrats, +1 fake outrage point. Hey, I'll go change it, to see what other excuse you use.

 

[Hussar]

You're right, no one who hasn't been playing 4e for at least a month should have an opinion.

You can turn Monopoly into a role-playing game if you try hard enough. The question is whether it's suited to it. If it doesn't pass even a readthrough why bother; there's a hundred other games out there that do. If you like 4e more power to you. I don't.

One would think, that to honestly critique a game, one should actually play it first.

Unless your critique is limited to the physical product, I cannot see how a critique with no experience can be considered remotely valid. I've never played OD&D, for example, so, I cannot really judge how the game plays.

For myself, I would certainly place a big disclaimer on the top of my review saying that I've never actually played it before trying to pass myself off as having an informed opinion.

 

[Imperialus]

The third ed forums are right below the 4th ed ones.

Cheers.

 

[mxyzplk]

One would think, that to honestly critique a game, one should actually play it first.

Unless your critique is limited to the physical product, I cannot see how a critique with no experience can be considered remotely valid. I've never played OD&D, for example, so, I cannot really judge how the game plays.

For myself, I would certainly place a big disclaimer on the top of my review saying that I've never actually played it before trying to pass myself off as having an informed opinion.

I think it's pretty explicit that it's just a readthrough, since, you know, we all just got the books, and it's cast as my thoughts as I read through each chapter one by one; with numerous parenthetical notes about stuff I probably won't understand till we get to a later chapter. The very first post starts "As I read through the 4e PHB, I bring to you a play by play commentary. I’m trying to wipe what I already think I know and just take the book as it comes. First Impressions. (...)"

Boy, I've heard a whole lot of people upset about these for all kinds of reasons except any bit of the actual information in them.

 

[Benimoto]

Sorry teh ghey makes you ignore all the actual information in the reviews. Or is it just a gambit to dismiss a differing opinion?

Well, the problem is: where is all the information? Calling something gay, or MMORPG-y, saying that rings suck bad, or that the designers have the economic skills of feces-throwing monkeys may mean a lot to you, but it doesn't really mean a lot to me.

My review of your review is that it's poorly written, badly organized and not well thought out. You seem to have just jotted down your thoughts as you went through the books page by page, and I suppose that gives me a sense of what it's like to be you reading the books, but that kind of information is just not useful to me.

 

[Ten]

Boy, I've heard a whole lot of people upset about these for all kinds of reasons except any bit of the actual information in them.

I am not sure what you want from us; You can't criticize fact, and you are balking at us criticizing your opinion. If we can't address the simple realities because doing so would be moot, and you refuse to accept us addressing your opinions...

What do you want?

 

[mxyzplk]

Well, the problem is: where is all the information? Calling something gay, or MMORPG-y, saying that rings suck bad, or that the designers have the economic skills of feces-throwing monkeys may mean a lot to you, but it doesn't really mean a lot to me.

My review of your review is that it's poorly written, badly organized and not well thought out. You seem to have just jotted down your thoughts as you went through the books page by page, and I suppose that gives me a sense of what it's like to be you reading the books, but that kind of information is just not useful to me.

Hm, I think if you go and fairly reread them, my opinions are definitely included but so is a nontrivial summary of pretty much every section of the new 4e rules, with substantial details on every race, every class, every rules subsystem. Reviews are supposed to be useful to people that haven't read something, not people that have. Yes, its organization is linear (but it follows the book, if the review is "badly organized" what does that say about the book it's reading through?) but it's pretty fact heavy. For someone who doesn't have 4e, you get more specifics on what the mechanics are than any other readthrough or review I've seen so far. If that's not "information" then I'm not sure what your definition of information is.

 

[Hairfoot]

I think it's a fair contribution to the "why 4E shouldn't be allowed to call itself D&D" debate. Whatever WotC has created, it's not Dungeons and Dragons, and should be called something which reflects its status as a defacto miniatures combat system with optional storytelling and roleplaying.