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

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

At the risk of repeating myself too much, the differences make it incomplete as D&D in my book. Just like a BLT could still be a decent sandwich worth eating without the tomato, it would be an incomplete sandwich if it was passing itself off as a BLT.

And then, of course, the question comes up whether it's worth waiting for it to be completed. I'll have an answer after I play it a few more times.

What's a BLT? I only remember BTL (Better than Life), but that's not a sandwich. [/clueless alien]

And by this "logic", each D&D edition would need bigger and bigger rulebooks, since you have to cover everything that previous rulebooks did contain. And that you just can't do! You have to cut down on something that makes the core books playing on its own.

And elsewise, food analogies... suck. Is D&D a "BLT"? Or is it a Sandwich, and D&D 3 was the BLT? How important is it for any kind of Sandich to be a BLT? Even for those that like BLT? What if the new sandwich created is far better then the BLT, without the after-taste you didn't quite like?

 

[Fenes]

What's a BLT? I only remember BTL (Better than Life), but that's not a sandwich. [/clueless alien]

And by this "logic", each D&D edition would need bigger and bigger rulebooks, since you have to cover everything that previous rulebooks did contain. And that you just can't do! You have to cut down on something that makes the core books playing on its own.

And elsewise, food analogies... suck. Is D&D a "BLT"? Or is it a Sandwich, and D&D 3 was the BLT? How important is it for any kind of Sandich to be a BLT? Even for those that like BLT? What if the new sandwich created is far better then the BLT, without the after-taste you didn't quite like?

It's very important that a BLT tastes like a BLT. If I want to eat a BLT, I won't order something that's called a BLT, but actually doesn't have Bacon, Lettuce or Tomato.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

It's very important that a BLT tastes like a BLT. If I want to eat a BLT, I won't order something that's called a BLT, but actually doesn't have Bacon, Lettuce or Tomato.

Ah thanks.

First I try to claim my family's home has an escalator instead of stairs, and now I prove my total cluelessness with not knowing what a BLT is ... What a day..

---

Well, maybe i just didn't order the RPG equivalent of a BLT when I wanted to see a "new D&D". Maybe I just ordered a very good sandwich. And others ordered a sandwich assuming that "good sandwich = BLT".

Did I say that I don't like food metaphors. Where's hong when I need him?

 

[Imaro]

Ah thanks.

First I try to claim my family's home has an escalator instead of stairs, and now I prove my total cluelessness with not knowing what a BLT is ... What a day..

---

Well, maybe i just didn't order the RPG equivalent of a BLT when I wanted to see a "new D&D". Maybe I just ordered a very good sandwich. And others ordered a sandwich assuming that "good sandwich = BLT".

Did I say that I don't like food metaphors. Where's hong when I need him?

I think in the BLT analogy...rpg's in general are sandwiches, while specific roleplaying games are specific sandwiches. To say I just wanted a very good sandwich is to say I just wanted a good rpg. This could, depending on one's tastes include Exalted, WoD, D&D 4e, Runequest, Warhammer FRPG, True20 or Pathfinder.

Now if you want D&D in particular, then you are buying it because you expect (from past experiences) certain things from said game. I wouldn't buy Exalted 3e and expect it to have become the grim and grity game of sub-par mortals fighting just to survive, and I wouldn't buy a new edition of Warhammer FRPG and expect it to be the game of reborn demi-gods who once ruled creation...even though, arguably, these games are both about "killing things and taking their stuff" and I like both games. It's the tropes and flavor that set these two games apart.

D&D 4e feels incomplete because it has removed many of the previous editions tropes...both fluff and mechanical...and replaced them with less. Some people like you went in wanting just a good fantasy game with the name D&D on it, Others expected an evolution, but not lessening, of the things that are familiar to them in D&D. The latter category plays D&D for a particular feel and style that they feel isn't represented well by D&D 4e, often because it has cut instead of expanding from the previous edition.

 

[VanRichten]

Er, I think you might want to read the rest of the thread. Seriously, improvised weapons are NOT a viable option.

Like I said, 3E uses the same spells as 1e/2e, but the underlying assumptions in 1e/2e give vastly different results.

Fly in 1e/2e - Not broken
Fly in 3.x - Definitely broken.

Define to me what you mean by "Not a viable option".

Also please define to me how Fly as you and others have stated was not broken in 1e/2e but was in 3.x.

 

[billd91]

And by this "logic", each D&D edition would need bigger and bigger rulebooks, since you have to cover everything that previous rulebooks did contain. And that you just can't do! You have to cut down on something that makes the core books playing on its own.

Not true. You can still, and should, compare the games when they were released, the point the publisher said "They're done. Go have your fun". And at this point, 4e just doesn't measure up to 3e or even 2e at the same point in the publishing process - the publication of the PH, DMG, and MM.
4e has a few miles to go to even get to that point as a D&D game.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Not true. You can still, and should, compare the games when they were released, the point the publisher said "They're done. Go have your fun".

Well, I think they are done. The game works, and I am already having fun with it.

Was 3E "done" when they were already planning to create stuff like the Psionics? When there were still tons of Prestige Classes waiting to be made? If they deliberately put out the OGL to have others be able to expand the book?

Though I agree there is a difference between 3E and 4E. WotC tells us: "You know, these are the core rulebooks. They are done and you can have fun with them. But there is still more coming, and it's also core." Maybe that causes the impression that D&D 4 is "incomplete". The designers and the marketing tells us openly: There is more to come. If you're happy now, you will possibly be blown away soon. If you're not happy yet, maybe the next few books will have you love the game.

That's something new.

And maybe this makes the game incomplete - we know there is more to come. We know the system can do more. We know the designers can do more. Heck, lots of it is already in the works and already announced!

I am not aware that the 3E designers ever said about 3e "There's stuff we had to cut or didn't have time to get right on time. Tons of spells and feats, a few classes, more Prestige Classes, rules for play beyond level 20."

 

[Rechan]

Define to me what you mean by "Not a viable option".

How is it that you completely ignored when it was fully explained to you?

Ogre. BAB +3. Throwing is a ranged attack, thus he uses his (8) dex. The attack is a +2. Because he is not proficient with Rocks, he receives a -4. So his attack is at -2.

Compared to his +8 with that great club, I really do not understand how you can argue that an attack at a -2 is a viable option. Would you encourage your PCs to use attacks at -2?

 

[billd91]

Compared to his +8 with that great club, I really do not understand how you can argue that an attack at a -2 is a viable option. Would you encourage your PCs to use attacks at -2?

Yes. If that's what the character would reasonably do, knowing what they know in-character.

 

[Rechan]

Yes. If that's what the character would reasonably do, knowing what they know in-character.

There's a difference between a viable option and a reasonable one.

A viable option is one that simply will not succeed the vast majority of the time.

In fact, the Definition of Viable (at Merriam-Webster): capable of working, functioning, or developing adequately.

I wouldn't call -2 "adequately". I'd call it "Idiotic". Or "Wasting your turn".