D&D 5E Comment on the negative article by John Dodd

[reiella]

There is no doubt, NONE, that WotC could have easily added $15 worth of more material to the boxed Starter. More art, a battlemap, character counters or heck even plastic minis. They consciously and deliberately opted not to do those things specifically to keep the price down and encourage potential buyers to take a look at the far more impressive advanced books coming out. I agree, the comparison made between the two was uneven. Still, i found it interesting to see the differences explained.

They also are campaigning fairly strongly on the Theatre of the Mind being the default scenario now, so I imagine not including maps/tokens/etc may have been an intentional choice on that route.

 

[SigmaOne]

They also are campaigning fairly strongly on the Theatre of the Mind being the default scenario now, so I imagine not including maps/tokens/etc may have been an intentional choice on that route.

I'm pretty sure they've said that it was intentional in interviews, responding to these kinds of questions. They're not opposed to minis/pawns/etc (hence the Heroes of the Realms release), but they want new players to know that minis are not necessary. Also, (I think) they feel providing minis/pawns and "battle maps" within the box emphasizes the "combat tactics" aspects of the game at the cost of the "roleplaying" aspects of the game.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I also really dislike hat biased review. It was no fair comparision. I do have noticed some of those reviews already on RPGnet, where someone calls basic an incomplete game, when it actually is right now, failing to tell us, that it will be upgraded for a while.

Right now, starter set and basic in conjunvture is the introduction product, and it seems well enough for that purpose.

The only thing to add in the starter set would be a loose sheet, with the map of phandelver on one side and the land around on the other without text to hand out to the players.

 

[Agamon]

I stopped reading once I got to the part where he mentions that they liked the BB has full color books, where the SS didn't. Did I get a faulty Starter Set with too many color pages or can someone point me to the pages in either of the Starter books that are black and white?

Also, why no pics of people playing the games? My guess is this was likely all fabricated.

I have no problem with people liking or disliking what they wish, but a sloppy blog post being marketed as a review requires to called out as BS, especially when it manages to fool some people not as integrated into the hobby as some of us, like the OP.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I have no problem with people liking or disliking what they wish, but a sloppy blog post being marketed as a review requires to called out as BS, especially when it manages to fool some people not as integrated into the hobby as some of us, like the OP.

This cuts both ways, though, Agamon, and in my experience, it's only when a review of a mainstream product is negative that people start bringing out the stuff about "fabricated" or "fooling people" or the like. Had someone done an equally dubious positive review of the SS, I do not believe for one second that anyone would be calling them on it (same would go for any RPG or edition, note).

 

[Evenglare]

So I'll admit the pathfinder beginner game is a better product. I love the starter for 5e but I can see how all the bells and whistles could pull in a new player for pathfinder... BUT... the funny thing about the review is that the players complained that they had to look rules up in 5e instead of having them handed to them like in the pathfinder set. Is this absolutely hilarious to anyone else? The starter set is intended to get players ready for the "real" game. If they think pathfinder play is going to be as easy as the starter set I'd LOVE to see their reactions when they get the massive rule bloat and have to constantly look up little details. While 5e has a much more streamlined rule set this time around.

I'd say the pathfinder starter does a pretty poor job introducing the players to what an actual game and character creation will be like. Especially since they cut down the rules like AOOs where as 5e is the actual game presented in a neat fashion.

 

[Sacrosanct]

In the testing field where I work, we call this, "garbage in, garbage out." Meaning, if you start your analysis with with either bad data, or don't account for core differences in that data, you'll end up with bad analysis. That's what was done here.

Also, and I am not saying this guy did this, but when 5e was announced, there were several people who said they will actively try to hurt 5e as much as possible (the aforementioned RPG.net is a site where this was expressed more than once by bitter gamers). That's the sort of broken mentality some people have over a game. So I'm not surprised you see bad reviews spring up.

All you can really do is look at the source. Is it a reputable reviewer with an objective analysis, or just some Joe Schmo with an agenda. Looking at the language used is a big give away.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I'd say the pathfinder starter does a pretty poor job introducing the players to what an actual game and character creation will be like. Especially since they cut down the rules like AOOs where as 5e is the actual game presented in a neat fashion.

This is an interesting point.

Whilst we'll never know, I suspect, I wonder if 5E will see more players retained by the rules staying approximately the same complexity, or whether the better initial product will mean that, even though the rules become more complex with the full product, PF retains more.

Impossible to say, I guess. Having tried starters of various games with various groups in the past, I could see it going either way. The only thing that is always off-putting is when the rules of the full game directly remove something fun from the starter game (but that's really rare).

 

[billd91]

I stopped reading once I got to the part where he mentions that they liked the BB has full color books, where the SS didn't. Did I get a faulty Starter Set with too many color pages or can someone point me to the pages in either of the Starter books that are black and white?

Also, why no pics of people playing the games? My guess is this was likely all fabricated.

I have no problem with people liking or disliking what they wish, but a sloppy blog post being marketed as a review requires to called out as BS, especially when it manages to fool some people not as integrated into the hobby as some of us, like the OP.

Maybe you should read the review - all the way through. It's a lot more even-handed than a lot of people are posting here. And nowhere does he say that the D&D Starter Set has no color - rather that all of the monsters get full color illustrations in the PF BB and that the rulebooks in the PF BB are full color all the way through - and they are a lot more colorful. You can't really deny that.

 

[Umbran]

I was not impressed by his failure to note that "slightly higher price" is also generally *double* price, and include that in considering the value....

I also was not impressed by how, "The test group liked this, that, and the other" became, at the end, "The favorite is the protagonist, the less favored is the antagonist". Casting one as a villain pretty much makes the message, "Paizo good guy, WotC bad guy." If that was his intent, then he seems an edition warrior who's impartial judgement I must question. If that wasn't his intent, then he's not thinking much about what he's doing, and again, I must question his conclusions and presentation.

All in all - I'm not impressed by this review. I would suggest that the colorful pop-culture reference commentary be left out of his next such attempt, as is severely undermines his credibility.