Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Andor" data-source="post: 4274386" data-attributes="member: 1879">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 &quot;It's not how it was done in 3.5!&quot; and more along the lines of &quot;This is not how it was done in 1e, 2nd, 3e or 3.5 and it no longer feels like D&amp;D to me.&quot; 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 &quot;D&amp;D 4e&quot; on the cover it would have been a resoundingly bad edition of D&amp;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.First: The word is spelled &quot;designed&quot;.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 &quot;take however long it takes but get it right&quot; 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 &quot;YES!&quot; then it is a great game, maybe the best.For 4e I'm not hearing &quot;YES!&quot; on all counts. Not everyone says it feels like D&amp;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.&nbsp; And when I've got it, and played it I'll form my own opinion.&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Andor, post: 4274386, member: 1879"] 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. First: The word is spelled "designed". 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 [i]dammed[/i] 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. :) [/QUOTE]

Verification