4E is unacceptable

[thecasualoblivion]

And you think that will be any different in 4E? It won't. The only difference is that the "tell a story" guy has less options available to him.

Yes I do. Have you read the books or played in games. The power spread for 4E is a lot closer, and there is a much smaller distance between optimized and unoptimized. Maybe this will change, but if you compare power level spread between 3.5E core and 4E core it isn't close.

You actually have to work to fail in 4E, by making a 10 Str Fighter or something like that. Even if you waste every feat, choose the worst power every time, or what have you, you aren't really going to break the game.

The only absent choice is that you can't choose to suck. Is that what people are upset about?

 

[Sunderstone]

I also found the OP slightly abrasive (even though im also not pro-4E). That said, the OP does have a valid opinion concerning the "incomplete game" comment.

Some of us like our D&D abit more traditional. Maybe we dont like having Dragonborne as a core race, maybe we prefer our Gnomes. Maybe we dont like the Warlock or Warlord as a core class, maybe we prefer the Druid and Bard etc.
The OP stated he liked the core mechanics/rules and wanted to like the game or whatnot. Based on his post it does look like he is trying to get his version of D&D working under the new rules.

To do this, it looks like he will need to buy "promised sequels" (probably at $35 a pop), so to him WotC has changed the Core three books to 4 or 5 or whatever it will take to return his gaming world to what it was under the new rules.
I know if I did like the 4E ruleset, this would be like giving me half a game imho as well. Id be thinking "wow now Ill have to have buy at least 4 "Core" books to bring this game to what Im used to, furthermore I might have to buy my web enhacements monthly when I used to get them free".

In this I can understand the frustration. To me (again imho) it looks incomplete, as well as am attempt to get me to pay more for my game to be "recognizable" again.

Im repeating this because it seems as if most people responding are looking at the tone of the OP (which I also found abrasive) rather than some of the actual content of the OP.
Someone mentioned internet rage here or in the forked thread. Its on both sides as usual, the responses are just as abrasive if not more so based on quantity.

 

[Corjay]

I don't know if anyone has covered this, but turn to the character sheet at the back of 3e PHB and you'll find a full page RPGA add. Also, there is absolutely nothing wrong with advertising your other products. I don't see how some small little box that merely mentions the RPGA and clearly states its purpose gives any indicator that it's the only way to play.

As for the rest of the OP, it's non-sense. The concessions given are the only reasons to play a game, while the rest should have absolutely no bearing on a person's choice to play a game. For someone who is "HONESTLY trying to be positive about 4e", the OP seems to be being incredibly dishonest by not actually being positive and not just admitting having no interest in investing in a new game.

Sure a 22 page errata is a bit much, but it has been standard operating procedure for WOTC for some time now. If you don't want to deal with it, then stop buying their products. Instead of having an editor dedicated to rules consistency, WOTC just coughs out what they have and posts the errata as it comes. It saves them production money, but I think it costs them in the long run. I suspect that they were in a bigger rush to get it out the door than even they realized, or at least bigger than they realized they would be at the time they promised there wouldn't be a 4.5, but then maybe the promise just means that no matter how much errata there is, they won't do a 4.5 under any circumstances, making the consumer bite the bullet. I hope they provide some kind of special edition that includes the errata'd rules.

A legitimate gripe should counteract some point in the paragraph the OP stated as the concessions. Errata is just not a deal breaker to enough people to affect the game that much (Of course, a company can't know how much a bad practice affects them until they change the habit, and I think if WOTC ever wakes up and starts editing its material properly they'll find their sales improve significantly).

 

[SSquirrel]

They intentionally held back content. They intentionally added in the RPGA/D&D insider plugs. (And for the record, I'd rather have a full page add in the back of my book, than strewn throughout in space hogging "side-bars"...with references such as "though this character would not be allowed in the RPGA" sprinkled in there as a way to make non RPGA-ers feel inferior.)

Its better than pong, but I expected more of a HALO 3, and got a Super Mario Bros 1.

SMB1>Halo3 by so much it isn't even funny.

I've never enjoyed RPGA and we've had ads in the books dating back to 1E. Nothing to see here folks.

As to holding things back, yes we don't have some things in the first 3 books. Many of the things they don't have were less popular, more easily broken or just plain difficult. Yay for removing the chaff so they can get them worked out better.

To the comment about the sidebars and such I have some info below. Also, that specific reference you quote is about a character with rolled dice for stats not point bought ability scores. Hardly the condescending game designer thumbing his nose at the peons.

PHB and RPGA:

pg 18 speaks about rolling abilities not being an option in RPGA events. Good to know if you are going to make one at home to take to the con.

DMG and RPGA:
pg 164 says no artifacts in RPGA events, unless it happens in the event and then it doesn't stick around.

MM and RPGA:
0 mentions

DDI gets a full page ad in the back of all 3 books.

So by your definition, my closet is strewn with khaki suits, even tho I only own one

 

[ThirdWizard]

Wow. A couple of years ago, nobody would have defended a Fighter/Wizard 10/10. This thread loses.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Yes I do. Have you read the books or played in games. The power spread for 4E is a lot closer, and there is a much smaller distance between optimized and unoptimized. Maybe this will change, but if you compare power level spread between 3.5E core and 4E core it isn't close.

You actually have to work to fail in 4E, by making a 10 Str Fighter or something like that. Even if you waste every feat, choose the worst power every time, or what have you, you aren't really going to break the game.

The only absent choice is that you can't choose to suck. Is that what people are upset about?

You're not quite getting the argument.

Is there a power spread between two characters? Yes. That's not the issue. The issue is, does it matter? If you have someone who purposefully min-maxes their character to god levels, you pull that person aside and talk to them because the other players aren't having fun. If you have a player who makes bad characters, you pull them aside and try to give them some advice. The only time min-maxing destroys games is when you purposefully let it.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

You're not quite getting the argument.

Is there a power spread between two characters? Yes. That's not the issue. The issue is, does it matter? If you have someone who purposefully min-maxes their character to god levels, you pull that person aside and talk to them because the other players aren't having fun. If you have a player who makes bad characters, you pull them aside and try to give them some advice. The only time min-maxing destroys games is when you purposefully let it.

My question is twofold: does this power spread disrupt the game, and to what degree does it disrupt the game? Also, is it not bad game design that people need to rewrite characters because of it? Would a game where this isn't necessary be an improvement in this regard?

 

[Halivar]

And you think that will be any different in 4E? It won't. The only difference is that the "tell a story" guy has less options available to him.

My games went exactly the opposite. We prefer the narrative to the strategic, and as a DM, I am freer to tell the story. Also, players are no longer jumping through hoops trying to justify their narrative devices like back-stories with skill-points.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

My games went exactly the opposite. We prefer the narrative to the strategic, and as a DM, I am freer to tell the story. Also, players are no longer jumping through hoops trying to justify their narrative devices like back-stories with skill-points.

Don't have to take ranks in Profession: Baker to have been a baker. If you are a Wizard who had a little fighter training, you can just take a proficiency in something, instead of having to spend an entire level. Assuming a couple of points in Str, you might even hit something occasionally.

 

[Corjay]

By the way, where do I find this 22 page errata?

The only errata I can find for the PHB is 11 pages, and that's generous, because the text is all 14 pt. Cut it down to 10 pt, and you're left with 7 pages, 6 pages if you remove the update list.