4E is NOT a V3.75!

[mcrow]

I don't have the books yet, haven't played it yet, and don't have a firm opinion on 4e yet therefore.

However most of the negative comments I've seen here on EnWorld are less "It's not how it was done in 3.5!" and more along the lines of "This is not how it was done in 1e, 2nd, 3e or 3.5 and it no longer feels like D&D to me." 4e is not merely a new game it is also successor to a long gaming tradition and therefore can fail on the basis of it's failure to maintain that tradition as well as on it's own merits as a game. Shadowrun 3e for example was an excellent game, but if it had been released with "D&D 4e" on the cover it would have been a resoundingly bad edition of D&D. I'm not saying 4e has failed btw, I haven't seen or played it and won't form a definiative impression until I have. However those who have seen and played it are perfectly within their rights to form an opinion and are not any less right or wrong than you are.

Ok, that might be the case. It doesn't feel like any of the previous versions, that I can admit. I'm not saying people have to like 4e but to simply say it "sucks" is little overboard IMO. Hey, if people don't like that there is a MTG feel to it or that it doesn't really feel like any of the other editions then that is fine, it's their opinion. Just don't go spewing it like it is an absolute.

First: The word is spelled "designed".

sorry, apparently you are perfect and never make typing mistakes, maybe one day I'll be great as you.

Second: It is damm difficult to say if an RPG is good, better, or best, although it's pretty easy to spot bad. The designers of 4e are amoung the best, but they also had a dammed rushed production schedule and were very clearly designing under a different paradigm than the "take however long it takes but get it right" approach that was at work at WotC back when 3e was developed and no wonder. WotC back then was a Giant, flush with Magic cash and was run by a dedicated gamer who had bought the remains of TSR to save a game he loved. Now WotC is a minor division of Hasbro and all that crew are long gone.

The test of if a game is good or bad depends on it's goals. Does it suit the genre? Does it give the GM the tools he needs? Does it give the PCs the tools they need? Is it fun to play? If the answer to of all these is a resounding "YES!" then it is a great game, maybe the best.

For 4e I'm not hearing "YES!" on all counts. Not everyone says it feels like D&D. Some GM's feel like they want more monster/items/fluff. Some PCs want more or different races and classes. Some don't enjoy it.

No game is perfect for everybody, but I think you may need to consider that your own opinion on 4e is not an objective fact.

And when I've got it, and played it I'll form my own opinion.

Well, I never said it was the best or that it was perfect. I said it was probably was among the best if not the best. As you your "test" I can answer "yes" to all of them but the last one (i'll be playing it saturday), but that's just my opinion.

 

[mcrow]

No...

Its more like:

that's not how oE, 1E, basic, 2E, 2Er, 3E, or 3.5E did it, nor conceived it.

You can only kill so many cows before you need to take down the sign that says 'cattle ranch.'

The funny thing is for me 3.X didn't feel like any of the other editions, but I moved past that and it became "D&D".

 

[Sunderstone]

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.

^This.

No...

Its more like:

that's not how oE, 1E, basic, 2E, 2Er, 3E, or 3.5E did it, nor conceived it.

You can only kill so many cows before you need to take down the sign that says 'cattle ranch.'

^And This.

 

[BadMojo]

The art that seamlessly integrates 3e era art? This is meaningless as a statment of quality - some of the art is 5 or 6 years old.

The art is very good and certainly I would consider it among the top in the RPG industry.

The layout...not so much. Layout along with the quality of materials used in the book itself are the two things that immediately jumped out at me. Before I even read a word, I noticed both of these things; it made for a very poor first impression.

Neither one of those things is really a deal breaker for me with 4E, just disappointing for a company with the resources of WotC, let along not in line with the cost of the book.

I also think it's fair to compare D&D to any other roleplaying game (they are the competition) and especially so with the current edition's predecessors. What else are you going to compare it to? Jenga? Nothing at all?

WotC have set the bar very high for themselves with the amount of hype about 4E. I wouldn't be surprised if they get criticism just because of that. You've got to back it up if you're going to talk it, and Wizards was certainly talkin' it.

 

[mcrow]

The layout...not so much. Layout along with the quality of materials used in the book itself are the two things that immediately jumped out at me. Before I even read a word, I noticed both of these things; it made for a very poor first impression.

I've had the books for almost two days now and the bidning and materials seemt to be of the same quality as 3.X. I think the layout is much improved over 3.x which I thought was way too busy looking and hard to use as a reference. I like the simple layout, it's nice clean and easy to scan.

You've got to back it up if you're going to talk it, and Wizards was certainly talkin' it.

Sales don't lie, they've already sold 50% more 4E books than either 3/3.5 with a sizable second print run in the works. I'd say the consumers have spoken with their wallets.

 

[Nellisir]

The art is very good and certainly I would consider it among the top in the RPG industry.

Don't get me wrong, I think WotC has great art. But don't say 4e is "better" because of the art when at least a portion of that great new art isn't new.