4E value < 3E value

[D'karr]

Value=usefullness, not page count. Most of the best RPG products I've owned have had minimal/modest page count.

It's amazing the amount of valuable (playable) information the Magenta Colored (Moldvay Set) D&D Basic book crammed into 64 pages. That little book provided me with hours upon hours of game entertainment (Value).

Then they followed it up with the Blue Colored Expert Set (Cook & Marsh). With another 64 pages of pure awesome.

 

[Scribble]

Myself, I wouldn't want my players buying and using the same book that had all the "world secrets." There's got to be something to discover, no? I mean, the last CS had all the villain stats ---- you'd know exactly how tough the bag guys were, etc.

It's a return to a similar approach the boxed sets took. The old style boxed sets had the DM info, and a player's info book, and sometimes an adventures book.

That was a great approach in my opinion. I could hand out the player's section durring character creation as a guideline for the players, without them inadvertantly (or purposefully) glancing through the DM stuff. I'm told boxed sets are way expensive these days though.

In the end, as mentioned before, I'm happy with the split though. I don't really need the player's book. (won't need it at the table) and if I want to make use of the info from it for an adventure my planned subscription to DDI should offer it.

 

[D'karr]

Myself, I wouldn't want my players buying and using the same book that had all the "world secrets." There's got to be something to discover, no? I mean, the last CS had all the villain stats ---- you'd know exactly how tough the bag guys were, etc.

This right here was my biggest problem with the Eberron Book. I mean I love the world, I love the ideas, I love the organizations, etc. But why is all the DM information there on the page right next to what the player needs? That was the biggest turn off. If I wanted to surprise the players with the Emerald Claw I actually had to make some serious changes.

Personally I prefer the DM information to be separated. I know some players are going to look anyway, but I prefer to think that if I ask them not to peek at section 9. That they will not. It is hard to do that if the Big Secrets of the campaign are there on plain sight.

 

[JeffB]

Pot, kettle.

So it's not okay and unreasonable for someone to hate on the 4e layout, but you can bash the 3e layout all you like?

OP was talking about decreased value due to decreased word count (and less words= dumbed down).

I didn't say it was wrong what he posted, but did say that for others (myself included) better layout and less word count may = better value.

You're the one who threw in the little 4E Zealot jab, Chief.

 

[Wyrmshadows]

Compare that to:
The Setting Core Book
3-6 Areas in the Setting Books
The Setting Magic Book
The Setting Religion Book
The Setting Monster Book
The Setting Good Guy Book
The Setting Villain Book
The Setting Ancient Periods/Lost Stuff Book
1-3 Setting Adventures

Wow, depth of setting is dreadful. I remember how rich settings were in 2e. No one put a gun to your head to buy setting books, but at least the material was there if you wanted it. 3e had some well supported settings (FR, Midnight, Scarred Lands, etc.) with a great deal of richness. IMO 3e, at least in regards to FR, suffered from the "We need to include a pile of PrCs in every book" way of thinking.

Now 4e players will get 3 books per setting. This is said to be great because DMs only need bare bones to get things going. Bare bones to get things going is great, but when you have to pretty much homebrew all the details of a setting I really can't see a reason not to homebrew.

I bought the 4e FRCG and color me unimpressed. The font size is huge compared to the 3e FRCG and the use of 'white space' is quite liberal. There is no comparison between the 3e and 4e versions of the setting based on the core setting book alone. I know there is a Players Book coming out soon, but that doesn't change the fact that the core book is deficient.

At least in the 2e and 3e era you had the option of either a spartan or as detailed a setting as you wanted based on which books you decided to purchase. Now, there is no choice, you WILL have a spartan setting.

Hey, I don't want a version fight, but if you are actually telling me that offering sparse setting depth is a feature or that someone is attempting to force you to empty your pocket by having available optional material available...I have to call BS.

All of the above having PrCs, Feats, Magical Items, Spells, and Monsters in them. And each one costing $20-30 a piece.

All optional. No one had to buy anything more than the core setting book to play in a pretty darn detailed setting. Of course fans will buy up a lot of the materials for settings they enjoy.

And it's the 4e books trying to milk your money?

Well splitting up the iconic monsters and classes into multiple 'core' books is a marketing decision to get most money from the customers. I am not decrying the tactic, but to claim that no including metallic dragons in MM1 was anything other than a financial decision is IMO naive.

Besides, I must confess that for all the words in the 3e books, I didn't have a lot of use for the content. There wasn't all that much there for me. On the other hand, I think I'd get a whole lot more use out of the Adventurer's Vault, or the Swordmage/Genasi/Paragon Paths.

Well bravo for you. Your experience is not that of a setting fan who is deeply immersed in the setting and all its details. Many, many FR fans are upset by the reality that 4e's FR will always be a skeleton of its former self. I am a huge Midnight fan, and I would be unhappy if they stripped a rich world down to some sort of evicerated core that will NEVER receive further support.

But mostly, I appreciate all of the player info being sequestered into one book compared to having to shuffle through five different books because I have a feat from this one, a feat from that one, two spells from two different books, and a magical item out of the fifth book. So I might be paying for less page count, but organization well than makes up for it.

I'm all for player and DM's books. IMO 3e suffered from a great deal of a pander to powergamers mindset that made PrCs, which were intended as rare an prestigious class options, an expected part of every campaign. Because there are more players than DMs this decision, during the 3e era, was certainly a way in which to get a huge previously untapped market of players to buy books.



Wyrmshadows

 

[GnomeWorks]

I did say so, you even quoted me. Was there a point to your response?

I guess not.

You were being "civil," sure. If you like.

It's a play off of the Red Dragon video. We zealots are making fun of ourselves.

Again, I didn't really see it that way, but fair enough.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Have you read the thread? Thus far the posts have been very civil. Except one, which was by an anti-4E poster.

I dunno, this post:

I'm paying for the ability to read without eye strain because of tiny, cramped text that they attempt to squeeze into any available space or being constantly annoyed by an overly busy design style.

is more than a little hostile.

Though the starting post wasn't worded the best, the concerns should be pretty evident: the OP feels like he's not getting the same bang for the buck, and wanted to know if this was a "new 4e thing," or if he could maybe expect future books to go back to his preferred type size (and could hope for future campaign settings to be one big book rather than spread out).

The short answer, of course, is that this is part of 4e's plan, but the plan was more to (1) be accessible to people who are usually pretty turned off by 300 pages text-book-size font, (2) perhaps improve the quality of the books as a reference device, for which large fonts and bright colors help, and (3) provide lasting support for a setting over the course of a long-term, focused investment on books for it. So while you shouldn't expect smaller font or bigger books any time soon, this is not a symptom of dumbing-down or a blatant money-grab. It's calculated from a variety of angles, most of which have some good seeds behind them, even if they result in a look that you, personally, don't like.

I guess that wasn't so short. The bottom line is that WotC has different reasons for doing this than the OP thinks, so while the OP might feel that this is making the game dumb or being a blatant money-grab, there are other reasons.

That bottom line doesn't necessitate calling 4e dumb or saying that 3e made you need glasses, from either side.

SO STOP IT.

 

[GnomeWorks]

OP was talking about decreased value due to decreased word count (and less words= dumbed down).

A very reasonable assessment.

You're the one who threw in the little 4E Zealot jab, Chief.

Call a spade a spade, yo.

There are undoubtedly zealots on both sides. If you don't like the title, then don't act in accordance with it.

 

[Fifth Element]

I dunno, this post:

is more than a little hostile.

I really don't see how that post can be interpreted as hostile. It expressed an opinion strongly, but did nothing to suggest hostility towards the opposite opinion.

 

[Fifth Element]

You were being "civil," sure. If you like.

More civil than calling a bunch of posters "zealots", certainly. If you're really concerned about the thread going down in flames, don't bring matches and kerosene.