4e Has Less Raw Content: Fact!

[MichaelSomething]

"All Killer, No Filler!"

"They only cut the useless simulationist crap."

"How many players actually USE those wacky monsters anyway?!"

"A better system means there's less to explain so they don't need more space!"

"At least it doesn't read like a textbook!"

"Anything that's missing is a breeze to add!"

...did I miss any?

No you didn't. Not at all.

 

[JeffB]

Fact- I may be "getting less" but I'm having loads more fun with what I got -since I actually have a desire to play D&D again

 

[Nightchilde-2]

fact- i may be "getting less" but i'm having loads more fun with what i got -since i actually have a desire to play d&d again

qft.

 

[JoeGKushner]

Fact- I may be "getting less" but I'm having loads more fun with what I got -since I actually have a desire to play D&D again

That's great.

I never stopped having a desire to play D&D so I'm not coming at it from the same angle as you.

I'm also unsure that my initial post claims that you can't have fun with 4e as I note that I'm running it.

But hey, post away amigo.

 

[Almacov]

As for monsters, especially monsters at low levels, at first it does seem like we have a lot fewer options, yes. With the encounter building system that 4e uses now though, I feel safer using much higher level creatures against my players (even tenth level ones in the right situation), and the rules for scaling monsters are simple and effective enough that I actually have a range of monsters from 1st to 15th level that I can find ways to incorporate in my 1st level encounters. For me the selection of monsters feels broader than ever. (Especially since I'm DMing more than 5 players.)

 

[Dinkeldog]

"All Killer, No Filler!"

"They only cut the useless simulationist crap."

"How many players actually USE those wacky monsters anyway?!"

"A better system means there's less to explain so they don't need more space!"

"At least it doesn't read like a textbook!"

"Anything that's missing is a breeze to add!"

...did I miss any?

Just one:

"If I feel I must win the edition wars, I'll be looking at a long vacation from the boards."

Someone who has been around as long as you have clearly knows the rules. If you've forgotten, go into the announcement at the top of the forum again.

 

[Dinkeldog]

Joe, what are you missing right now?

Out of your list, I'd guess elementals--although the giants have kind of moved into that role--and animated objects, which I don't have an alternative for yet. The metallics are only reasonably useful in extremely limited circumstances--high-level mounts, mass combat, an "evil" campaign, and as NPC/patrons. I look forward to them when they come, but I'm not pining for them (like I am psionics).

So why not see this as an opportunity to fill some of that in? You're a brilliant designer and writer--start trying to fill what you see as the holes, especially for the items that will likely not get covered for a couple years.

 

[Treebore]

Maybe Joe wants a rules set that saves him work instead of requires it?

I for one love using Elementals, giants, Metallics, etc... So if I was going to stick with 4E beyond the current game I am in I would be angry that they left such creatures for later MM's. Fortunately I am not, so my BP is just fine.

 

[That One Guy]

Fact: Mike Mearls is a mammal.

Fact: Ninjas are mammals.

Fact: Mike Mearls is a ninja who eats sacred cows.

.....Sorry, I just had to reference that thing 'cause it's all I could think. *Ahem* So, I would argue that 4e drops in number of sheer options for developed Learnability, Flexibility, Robustness, Consistency, and effectively limiting the power of constraints.

Learnability - The ease w/ which a new user can begin effective interaction.
Flexibility - The multiplicity of ways in which the user & system exchange information. In this, I mean that the intentional modularity allows the system to be easily altered to suit one's needs.
Robustness - The level of support for user determining successful achievement. While this can have several uses, I will limit it by applying it to the way in which it is much easier to create a character who is functional in play.
Consistency - The power, race, and feat rules (barring some errata and anomalies) show remarkable consistency.
The Power of Constraints - This refers to limiting the possible interactions to key the user into what interactions are meaningful.

And that last one is the clincher. Some people do not like being given advice, even if it is good advice. The game's limitations and constraints - while designed to engineer meaningful gameplay - feel like wing clippings to some people. While not all bad options were removed (Sure Strike ), most of the game consists of 'good options'.

(This of course leads to the flawed assumption of flawed characters being better for roleplay... which somebody argued against quite well, but I do not recall that exact argument. Suffice it to say that a player can still create a dynamic character even if they are actually good at useful things)

Edit: This relates to the OP in that the lesser [fought] monsters would be relatively easily created for situations, and if the monster was to be an ally/not fought... it could get NPC rules. This goes back to the first three, and constraints would lead to the monster being constructible from synthesizing the objective and the monster creation rules.

...now I'll go back to professing my love of Tempest Fighters, etc. Thankyou.

 

[Nifft]

I'm torn.

Some 4e word-count reduction is great:
- smaller stat blocks
- smaller power entries
- focused advice in DMG

Some 4e word-count reduction is lame:
- 3e FRCS was gorgeous, and packed full of flavor
- useless "flavor" monster powers inspired much of my homebrew's ecology and cosmology
- depressingly small "spell lists"

Cheers, -- N