Forked Thread: Rate WotC as a company: 4e Complete?

[jdrakeh]

Other opinions?

Darrin once wrote for WotC. I get the impression that many of his posts criticizing WotC belie a larger, more personal, resentment. Claims of D&D 4e being "incomplete" due to a missing classes and races that have not been considered core throughout the entire history of D&D are a good example*.

*Though, in fairness, he's not the only one trying to establish a non-existant tradition of X and Y being 'core' aspects of D&D since the beginning. This fallacy has been offered up by quite a few posters.

 

[portermj]

The way that things are presented in 4E definately pushes things into later books. A style that results in thirteen pages of the Fighter Class and three pages on Orcs is going to force some cuts for the page count. What is in the core books seems very complete, but also completely ignores things I expect in core books like Druids and Metallic dragons.

I don't think it is a matter of the design team sitting in a bunker somewhere deciding that not putting gnomes in the PHB is key to selling the PHB II.

I seems like their common response to not including something in the initial three is due to not being sure how to make them work in the new edition. Of course that just sets up an expectation that things like the Half-Orc, Brass Dragon, and Monk will be much, much better when we finally see them in 4E. Hopefully that won't result in some fan favorites/classics from being the RPG version of "Chinese Democracy".

 

[Darrin Drader]

Darrin once wrote for WotC. I get the impression that many of his posts criticizing WotC belie a larger, more personal, resentment. Claims of D&D 4e being "incomplete" due to a missing classes and races that have not been considered core throughout the entire history of D&D are a good example*.

*Though, in fairness, he's not the only one trying to establish a non-existant tradition of X and Y being 'core' aspects of D&D since the beginning. This fallacy has been offered up by quite a few posters.

That would be an incorrect assumption. I'm proud of the work I did for them as a writer and as an employee. I think the people in R&D are talented, capable, and mostly wonderful. It just saddens me to see that they've taken the game in a direction that doesn't appeal to me and so many others, and that they've made so many decisions that have adversely affected their customers.

If I have any real beef with WotC, it's over the GSL, but that ground has already been well covered.

 

[Kzach]

Although I agree that you can't really argue that it's an 'incomplete' game, you also have to concede that it is a very obvious marketing ploy not to include certain things in the first three books.

 

[Rechan]

In all honesty, the only thing that feels "incomplete" to me is the feat selection. Simply because there doesn't seem to be a lot of wiggle room. (But then, I thought 3e's PHB feats were a little skimp).

Otherwise, I do not need a druid, a metallic dragon, a half-orc, or a frost giant to play D&D. It is complete as far as I am concerned.

 

[charlesatan]

Although I agree that you can't really argue that it's an 'incomplete' game, you also have to concede that it is a very obvious marketing ploy not to include certain things in the first three books.

If WotC could sell us three 600-page books at $70.00 each, I'm sure they probably would.

But as it is, there's only so many pages you can include in a book without raising its price point, or allot development/playtesting time for various races/classes.

As it is, 4E is no different than 3E (which was splat-intensive).

 

[Rechan]

Although I agree that you can't really argue that it's an 'incomplete' game, you also have to concede that it is a very obvious marketing ploy not to include certain things in the first three books.

Actually, I will question this.

How is putting Psionics in a book that isn't the first three any different than putting the Metallic dragons in a book that isn't the first three?

Not everybody uses metallic dragons. Not everybody uses Psionics. If you want either, you can go pick up a book you Want, which caters to a minority.

I would argue that fighting metallic dragons is even rarer than having psionics in your game. And not putting them in the Core is a simple decision: "Is everyone going to use this? If not, is it worth 12 pages to the MM (the same amount devoted to the Chromatics)?"

 

[Jack99]

I would argue that fighting metallic dragons is even rarer than having psionics in your game. And not putting them in the Core is a simple decision: "Is everyone going to use this? If not, is it worth 12 pages to the MM (the same amount devoted to the Chromatics)?"

In almost 20 years of DM'ing, I have used the stats for 2 or 3 metallics, and I am pretty sure I am not alone here.

4e to me is complete. The game is vastly superior mechanically (even though there are some issues, everything is not perfect) to any other edition, and while there might be fewer options than in the last edition, those that are, are more viable, more balanced.

Do not get me wrong, I would have loved a druid in the first PHB, but I rather have no druid, until I get a good balanced (as in non-broken) and playable druid.

I mean, for Christ's sake. 3.x had more than 60 base classes, more than 3500 feats and than 700 PRC's at the end. So many options that I bet less than 1% of the players even had a clue about how many options he or she had. Rather than trying to catter to every single retarded combination that some random John Doe liked, WotC decided to do quality over quantity. To get things right before they are released. And they have. So yeah, with regards to options, some might say 4e is less complete. I say it is better.

 

[Samuel Leming]

In almost 20 years of DM'ing, I have used the stats for 2 or 3 metallics, and I am pretty sure I am not alone here.
<rude rambling snipped>

I'm sure you're not alone. I wouldn't be surprised to find DMs that have never used any metallic dragons in their games at all. You could probably find DMs that have never used pixies, lizardfolk, or if you search very hard, trolls.

I, however, have used the stats for all the metallic dragons at one time or another. Usually as allies of the party or creatures to be rescued. Hardly useless. Especially not for the world building DMs out here.

Jack, what gets me is that you're constantly posting that your style of playing D&D is superior to mine. Obviously I don't agree. Why can't you understand that the current D&D situation is not an improvement for people that prefer a more old school/immersive/emulationist/simulationist/whatever they call it now days style of D&D?

Anyway, as to the topic of this thread. Is 4e complete? Yes. It's playable. It's fun if you meet it at least halfway and don't try to mangle it into something old school. Is 4e complete if you want to use it to play like most people did back in 1982? No. Barely even usable in that case.

Sam

 

[AllisterH]

Er, I should start off by saying, "I'm an actual former stockholder AND I've been to Hasbro stockholder meetings". I do think I might have a better insight about the WOTC& Hasbro relationship.

True, Imy last meeting I attended has been almost a decade ago, but I haven't heard anything change about Hasbro itself.

Hasbro is somewhat infamous in its hands-off approach to its subsidaries. I distinctly remember other fans of Hasbro's other subsidaries basically asking the same thing. Will Hasbro gut my favourite "company" after they acquire it? The answer was all the same. NO.

Hasbro doesn't look at SPECIFIC product lines but the overall revenue of its subsidaries.

Hasbro, most assuredly, probably doesn't even know exactly the profit to cost ratio of D&D and even if it did, it wouldnt care one iota as long as the overall WOTC division was successful.

Keep in mind that even with 4E's relative success, I seriously doubt the line was even as half as profitable to WOTC as M:TG (no-brainer) but also even the NOVELS department (really, I have a suspicion that even the novel department probably challenges M:TG. Really, profit to cost ratio for novels has to be much, MUCH larger than even M:TG)

Given how more and more "lines" seem to fall under WOTC (contrast the WOTC that Hasbro just bought to WOTC of today), Hasbro obviously seems to think WOTC is a very good subsidary. (Really, check out Hasbro's other subsidaries that have basically stayed the same size as before)

Personally, I think the BIGGEST issue that Hasbro might be looking at WOTC is the Dreamblade line that crashed and burned given how many resources WOTC put into it.

THAT, might actually cause Hasbro to take a look.

Similarly, the change in the M:TG release schedule I think was *influenced* by Hasbro (previously, M:TG had a release schedule where there were 3 releases per year and the next year, there would be 4 and then back to 3 and then to 4 etc. Two years ago, they went to 4)