Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JeDiWiker" data-source="post: 4142758" data-attributes="member: 53136">Like Sean, I'd just like to set a few things straight.First, the post many of you are quoting is actually the third in a series of posts. The <a href="http://jediwiker.livejournal.com/41107.html" target="_blank">first</a>  was made while I was playing the "Raiders of Oakherst" scenario, and concluded with "The final verdict? None of us are convinced that we want to play 4th Edition D&D; we need to see more before we can decide. But it's late, and I need to sleep on this before I can emphatically say I liked it or not."I <a href="http://jediwiker.livejournal.com/41310.html" target="_blank">posted again</a>  the next day, saying the jury was still out. A week later, it finally dawned on me what was bugging me, which prompted the <a href="http://jediwiker.livejournal.com/43482.html" target="_blank">"It doesn't feel like D&D" post</a> . Now, although I think I've clarified over and over on my own blog, it doesn't feel like D&D to me. If it feels like D&D to you, great. Maybe I'm wrong. I'll be happy to find out I'm wrong. As a freelancer, it's in my best interests to play a lot of 4th Edition D&D; I'd like to enjoy the experience. But, with the minimal information I have on the game so far, it doesn't look like I will. You might, and that's cool. Why? Because it really is a good game? Not necessarily. More likely, you might enjoy it more than I do because we're different people, with different likes and different expectations and goals.Do I think that you shouldn't commit to playing 4th Edition D&D? Well, yes, but not because I think the game sucks (which I don't), but because I think that everyone should make an informed decision before making a purchase of over $100. And if I have a problem with Wizards of the Coast over 4th Edition, it's that they are not giving us enough information to make informed decisions. We're getting opinions of people who have seen just a slice of the game (at the D&D Experience, at best, or, like me, from the fan-written "Raiders of Oakherst" and 4E PHB Lite). Most people who have seen it think it's a great game, but that doesn't make it true. If my opinion can be wrong, so can theirs. I don't think I owe anyone an apology for having a dissenting opinion, but, if it turns out that I enjoy 4th Edition more than 3.5, then I'll happily admit that I was wrong.Really, though, I think that Wizards could do themselves a world of good by releasing more information, officially, on their own website, that explains, in detail, how more (not all) of the game works. Right now, they're just showcasing the stuff which addresses concerns that people had with 3.X (and, by extension, previous editions), but that really only serves to convert the people who weren't happy with 3.X. To sell 4E in the face of alternate efforts like the Pathfinder RPG (which may not appeal to you, but may appeal to people who want to play D&D without tossing out their previous $100-plus investments), then Wizards should be doing more to speak to the people who don't have a problem with 3.X. (For the record, I have plenty of problems with 3.5, and there are things in 4E that I think fix them elegantly. But I think they can also be fixed within the context of the 3.5 rules.)And by "doing more," I don't mean hiding snippets of the rules on the Internet, or giving them out only to specific interviewers, or giving each member of the design team one thing they can reveal about the game. That kind of marketing may appeal to some people--but others, like me, find it annoying. I didn't go out of my way to pursue clues about Lost, Heroes, or Cloverfield, because, while I find such bits clever, I'm not looking for a mystery metagame; I'm looking for confirmed facts. (Which is why I read ENWorld's 4th Edition news more than I read Wizards' own web page on 4E; Wizards gives hints, ENWorld finds corroboration.)As for the throwing salt thing, that was just an example; I'm not trying to replicate that in 4th Edition. In fact, I haven't tried to replicate it since 1st Edition. I don't even recall how my DM adjudicated it back in 1982, except that I made an attack roll, and sometimes my opponent was blinded, losing his action for a round. And I didn't use the salt trick all the time because salt in the eyes wasn't going to kill an orc; all it did was buy me a round when the orc didn't get to attack me. None of the other players bothered with it, because they were more effective than my character (a 1st Edition monk, remember) was at fighting. In fact, I started using that trick--and several others, when appropriate--because monks were so weak under those rules. Do I want to play 1st Edition rules again? I have the rulebooks still, but I don't like the rules. What I liked was the sense of discovering new things, and using my imagination to deal with them. Playing a monk probably forced me to think more "outside the box" than others in my own group--and I had an excellent DM, who was able to make good rulings on the fly and remember them later ... and retcon the rules if he later decided they didn't work a well as he wanted.I'll be the first to agree that, while I'm entitled to an opinion, I shouldn't go out of my way to condemn 4th Edition--especially based on a fan-written adventure--which is why I went to such lengths to remind everyone that not only were these only opinions, but that I *want* to see more of the rules before I make a final determination. I'm not condemning 4th Edition, and I think you have to try pretty hard to come to the conclusion that I am. I'm just saying that I don't yet see what makes 4E indisputably superior to 3.5. Feel free to prove to me that it is superior to 3.5, but, remember, opinions are not arguments, so, really, the only way to prove it to me is to show me the 4E rules--which, by the same token, is the only way I can prove to you that 4E is inferior to 3.5. That is to say: Neither of us can prove at this time that our respective perceptions are accurate.Have I covered it all? No--two last things. One, I consider myself a hack RPG designer. I'm not a design genius. If you like my ideas, fine. If you don't, that's fine, too. At best, I can say about any given ruleset "I wouldn't have done it that way." But I do find it interesting that at least one of the things I proposed back in 1999 (which Jonathan Tweet rejected) found its way into 4E, in one form or another. (I suggested that turning undead should only work on one undead creature at a time, and that it should deal some kind of damage--fairly close to the 4E version on the Erais character sheet.)And as for vitality points in Star Wars? Not my idea. Andy Collins came up with that, and, though we brainstormed some ideas for how they should work, the original idea was Andy's.Finally, let me just state for the record: I want to like 4th Edition. And there are things about it I like. But I can't make a final decision until I see the whole thing--and I want Wizards to do a bit more to convince me (and the rest of the audience) that we need a new game, when the old one, despite its faults, runs fine.JD WikerFeel free to come argue with me at jediwiker.livejournal.com</blockquote>

Verification