4E is NOT a V3.75!

[mcrow]

Ok, so i've started reading through my books now. I have been reading threads about 4E, many of which have a lot of people who dislike it.

Now my observation after reading some of 4E is that many people seem confused about what 4E is. It seems that a lot of the reasons people don't like it is because it's not just simply a new version of V3.5. No, they don't come right out and say it but point out specific parts of 4E they don't like. However, it is clear to me that most of the girpes just boil down to "that's not how V3.5 did it!".

Again, this IS NOT V3.75. We've know this for quite some time now.

That is all.

 

[Zerakon]

I haven't noticed that. I've noticed that some people pointed to things they preferred in 3.5 over 4. Your take seems pretty condescending toward most reviews, which I have found to be pretty fair and honest takes of the new edition, based on personal preference.

It's okay if someone else thinks differently than you.

 

[TerraDave]

And pathfinder is 3.75...and it certainly has a following...

Your are leaving me shrugging.

 

[mcrow]

I haven't noticed that. I've noticed that some people pointed to things they preferred in 3.5 over 4. Your take seems pretty condescending toward most reviews, which I have found to be pretty fair and honest takes of the new edition, based on personal preference.

It's okay if someone else thinks differently than you.

Well, I didn't mean to be condescending but every time we have a new edtion there are those that hate for what it isn't. That's my point. No, I don't think the game will appeal to everyone as you said its "personal preference" but then don't tell me the games sucks just based on your personal preferences and because it's not the same as the game the previous edition that you loved. After all we all knew this would be a major departure from the last edition.

That's all.

If things are not to their taste, that's fine.

 

[mcrow]

And pathfinder is 3.75...and it certainly has a following...

Your are leaving me shrugging.

I never said that 3.5 or Pathfinder don't or shouldn't have a large following. I'm just simply stating that people shouldn't hate 4E because it is what is or what it isn't. Meaning its not 3.5 and its not Pathfinder so don't hate if for not being them. The same goes for 3.5 or Pathfinder. All three are good games and will probably have large followings.

 

[Nellisir]

I never said that 3.5 or Pathfinder don't or shouldn't have a large following. I'm just simply stating that people shouldn't hate 4E because it is what is or what it isn't.

So we should hate it for the word count, then? Of course people are going to hate it for what it is or isn't.

Meaning its not 3.5 and its not Pathfinder so don't hate if for not being them. The same goes for 3.5 or Pathfinder. All three are good games and will probably have large followings.

If you issue a new edition of an old game, the assumption is that you are trying to improve on the previous edition. People have a perfectly valid right to dislike 4e, or portions thereof, if they feel 4e has not improved on 3e. The point of buying a new edition is to play a better game, not a different game. If I just wanted a different game I'd play Runequest or Gurps.

 

[mcrow]

So we should hate it for the word count, then? Of course people are going to hate it for what it is or isn't.

Your arguement here is flawed due to the fact that it was widely known that 4e was not going to be just a new version of 3.5. Yes, its fair to say you prefer 3.5 or pathfinder over 4e but , IMO, its not fair to say that 4E is a bad game because it doesn't do what the other games do. Its like saying you hate GURPS because its not Hero System, GURPS was never intended to be Hero System, just as 4e ws never meant to be 3.5 or Pathfinder. Maybe I'm wrong but it seemed to me that it was a well known fact. [/quote]

It's fair to say "4e isn't to my taste"
It's fair to say " I like game X better"
It's not fair to say " 4e sucks because I like game X better"
I guess the hang up here is I'm talking about being objective.

Fact: D&D 4e is one of the best desinged RPGs on the market, if not the best. There may or may not be better games but I think we can all agree that it is one of the better games. The quality of the art and layout are also among the best. It was design and developed by many of the best game desingers in the field, the overall quality cannot be denied. You can say similar things for 3.5 and pathfinder.

 

[Lurks-no-More]

So we should hate it for the word count, then? Of course people are going to hate it for what it is or isn't.

I'm perfectly okay for them hating 4e for what it is, but hating it for what it isn't (in this case, a tuned-up 3.5) is kind of missing the point, in my opinion.

 

[Psion]

It's fair to say "4e isn't to my taste"
It's fair to say " I like game X better"
It's not fair to say " 4e sucks because I like game X better"
I guess the hang up here is I'm talking about being objective.

I think where we may differ here is that you seem to think that "sucks" is necessarily to be taken as an objective statement of value, whereas I see it as so inherently emotionally loaded a term that it's hard for me to attach any objectivity to it.

To me, objective statements are things like the book is 3/4 inch thick, resolving a round of combat takes at least X calculations, there are succubi in the MM, etc. Quality assessments are harder to make in RPGs, though you can make some inferences; human tastes are too tied up in it all to say something as objective as my Corvette goes faster than my Neon.

 

[mcrow]

I think where we may differ here is that you seem to think that "sucks" is necessarily to be taken as an objective statement of value, whereas I see it as so inherently emotionally loaded a term that it's hard for me to attach any objectivity to it.

To me, objective statements are things like the book is 3/4 inch thick, resolving a round of combat takes at least X calculations, there are succubi in the MM, etc. Quality assessments are harder to make in RPGs, though you can make some inferences; human tastes are too tied up in it all to say something as objective as my Corvette goes faster than my Neon.

You maybe right. When someone says something sucks, I take that as an objective statement. That they've used the info they know about it and they think it's and inferior product in comparison to similar products. Maybe they really mean "It's not my cup of tea".