Disappointed in 4e

[Hunter In Darkness]

Hey man I feel ya, 4e is not any type of game I want to play.

Saleing your 3e stuff sight on seen was unwise though my friend

 

[Jack99]

I'm DaveMage, and I approve this message.

So you are the McCain of D&D?

 

[Hunter In Darkness]

So you are the McCain of D&D?

Such words round here is an ok to stab you.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

I am curious about why you sold your 3rd edition collection. I love 4th edition and have only ever made extensive used out about 4 non core D&D books (out of a fairly extensive collection) but I currently have no intention of selling any of it.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

So what are we looking at for this one? Over/under 8 pages? Someone get the pool going.

Over 8 page and 4 forked threads

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Welcome to EN World!

And you raise a very good point. In 4e, rangers get a choice of Dungeoneering or Nature. Take Dungeoneering (what adventurer wouldn't want that?), ignore Nature, and don't look back. There. That's your nature-free archer / two-weapon combatant. Especially now that in 4e there are no default animal companions or nature spells for rangers.

Add in thoughness and two weapon defense and that ranger is a pretty effective defender just not as sticky as a fighter.

 

[wingsandsword]

IOW, his complaint is that Core 4Ed truncates choice in comparison to Core 3Ed...which is something that definitely turns me off about that game.

In the core rules of 3.0, 3.5 and back to the editions of AD&D, we had illusions for trickery, necromancy for creating undead minions, animal companions to accompany Rangers (and sometimes Druids), monks, and the ability of spellcasters to quickly cast spells other than purely combat magic. 4e gets rid of all that, things that had been pretty consistent in the D&D tradition, and promises us we can have it later. . .if we're just willing to keep shelling out for more splatbooks.

One of my big complaints about 4e is how it cuts out so many character options in the name of streamlined, precalculated fun.

Yes, WotC is a business and they don't make D&D as a charity, but making a whole new edition of D&D with fewer character options in the core and more restrictions on what you can do explicitly so they can sell more splatbooks makes me really not want to get on the splatbook bandwagon again and be happy with my 3.5. Then again, I'm apparently not the target audience for D&D anymore

 

[Alzrius]

I will never, ever understand why the internet gets so infuriated about the concept of a company striving to make money. I'm not sure what else is to be expected of a business enterprise.

The idea here isn't that a company is evil because it's striving to make money; it's that they're deliberately doing less than their best as an economic tactic.

Whether true or not, there's something of an ideal people have about businesses in the marketplace. This ideal is that companies that focus on doing the best that they can in providing a product/service will rise to success, and the money will follow as a natural consequence - in other words, that cream rises to the top.

When people seem to start getting upset is when they see companies deviating from that model, and embracing a different one. This alternate model eschews excellence, instead believing that greater money can be made by providing a flawed/incomplete product or service, because then this virtually guarantees sales of future goods in the name of "fixing" or "completing" the initial item. It's what people have been accusing Microsoft of for years - that they provide an OS that looks nice and performs well...or would if it wasn't bug-riddled and flawed, requiring that you purchase the next OS to get a cleaner, more stable version.

Whether true or not, this is how WotC looks to a lot of people right now. There's a strong impression that WotC didn't create the best game they could have with 4E - or rather, that things many people consider to be near-vital were deliberately held back from the Core Rulebooks to boost sales of later splatbooks. After all, we were told outright that several classic monsters wouldn't be in the MM simply so that they could be included in the MM2 to drive up sales. People simply feel that WotC is less concerned with releasing a great game, than they are concerned with releasing a flawed and incomplete game to better guarantee sales.

To summarize, people get upset when companies embrace the idea of non-excellence as a viable marketing tactic.

 

[DaveMage]

The idea here isn't that a company is evil because it's striving to make money; it's that they're deliberately doing less than their best as an economic tactic.

Whether true or not, there's something of an ideal people have about businesses in the marketplace. This ideal is that companies that focus on doing the best that they can in providing a product/service will rise to success, and the money will follow as a natural consequence - in other words, that cream rises to the top.

When people seem to start getting upset is when they see companies deviating from that model, and embracing a different one. This alternate model eschews excellence, instead believing that greater money can be made by providing a flawed/incomplete product or service, because then this virtually guarantees sales of future goods in the name of "fixing" or "completing" the initial item. It's what people have been accusing Microsoft of for years - that they provide an OS that looks nice and performs well...or would if it wasn't bug-riddled and flawed, requiring that you purchase the next OS to get a cleaner, more stable version.

Whether true or not, this is how WotC looks to a lot of people right now. There's a strong impression that WotC didn't create the best game they could have with 4E - or rather, that things many people consider to be near-vital were deliberately held back from the Core Rulebooks to boost sales of later splatbooks. After all, we were told outright that several classic monsters wouldn't be in the MM simply so that they could be included in the MM2 to drive up sales. People simply feel that WotC is less concerned with releasing a great game, than they are concerned with releasing a flawed and incomplete game to better guarantee sales.

To summarize, people get upset when companies embrace the idea of non-excellence as a viable marketing tactic.

Exactly.

 

[DaveMage]

So you are the McCain of D&D?

Alas, board rules prevent comment.