Grognard's First Take On 4e

[Wulf Ratbane]

True.

That said, one of his criticisms I don't think is a valid criticsim of 4E. That would be the encounter format. Isn't this the vastly preferred format we were using in the latter half of 3.5?

I have seen the "encounter format" used well, and used poorly. Within the same adventure.

At any rate, I wouldn't confuse opinions with criticisms. If he doesn't like the encounter format (even though I agree with you that on the whole it's better), it's not invalid. He just doesn't like it.

You and I don't like having to flip back and forth across multiple pages for the same encounter.

Both are valid.

 

[Crothian]

You're not the only one. Personally I think if you got rid of the name and did a "blind test" session a lot of people even those who are in favor of 4e wouldn't know it was D&D. The changes are just that big. It feels more like GURPS without the points mixed with M:TG and I've never been able to like either.

Changes from second edition to third were also huge, it was still D&D. D&D is less about the rules and more about the feel. I think a good DM can get D&D out of the GURPS Rules or even White Wolf. I know I have.

 

[Fifth Element]

If he wants to run the game, I think he can do so with KotS and get a good approximation. Then he can check out the Core books and maybe he'll see some new rules and things that he couldn't experience in Shadowfell.

Well yes, running the adventure should give you a good feel for 4E. But IIRC the OP is basing judgments not on playing KotS, but reading KotS.

 

[TwoSix]

You are allowed to be convinced that 4e will be awesome, even though you haven't seen it. This is not close-minded.

You are not allowed to be convinced that 4e will suck, even though you haven't seen it. This is close-minded.

Even though both groups have been exposed to the exact same limited data on which to form an opinion, the validity of your opinion around these parts is entirely dependent on what ill-informed judgment you eventually arrive at.

That's because "open-minded" has 2 different connotations; the first being "willingness to revise a held opinion", and the second being "receptive to change or new ideas." Liking 4e without having the full evidence gives you the benefit of meeting the second concept without actually having to meet the first.

 

[Alynnalizza]

Yes, but the real question is, how many times have you said "that looks like crap", only to wind up watching the movie for some reason and finding it's actually pretty good, or even great? It happens.

Conversely, many movies I've thought looked great turned out to be crap. The point is, judging anything based only on a sliver of it leads to bad judgments at times.

Exactly, but it doesn't make the initial opinion any less 'acceptable'.

That's the joy of life. You can kick yourself in the arse three years down the road when you open the book or watch the movie and say. "Why didn't I get this or see this originally?".

Could be your tastes were different then, and come later, things change. Could just be bad marketing .

 

[Cadfan]

Ah, the joys of geek fandom- where unconditional love and unconditional hate are both defended by pedants as being equivalent. Because, after all, the only possible way of comparing the two is through symbolic logic from a value neutral perspective. Both generate truth values in equivalent manners. They are clearly the same.

 

[HeavenShallBurn]

Changes from second edition to third were also huge, it was still D&D. D&D is less about the rules and more about the feel. I think a good DM can get D&D out of the GURPS Rules or even White Wolf. I know I have.

I was talking about the feel, the feel of the game is very different from every previous edition. Different enough that it just doesn't feel like the same game to me anymore. Not everybody will feel the same, but for me it just isn't D&D anymore. My pet peeve is the magic system. It's efficient, balanced, mostly easily adjudicated. Even the ritual rules are elegant, but the result just doesn't feel like D&D.

 

[vagabundo]

Ah, the joys of geek fandom- where unconditional love and unconditional hate are both defended by pedants as being equivalent. Because, after all, the only possible way of comparing the two is through symbolic logic from a value neutral perspective. Both generate truth values in equivalent manners. They are clearly the same.

I fear we are getting into the alignment of different members here.


Hands up who is True Neutral?

 

[vagabundo]

I was talking about the feel, the feel of the game is very different from every previous edition. Different enough that it just doesn't feel like the same game to me anymore. Not everybody will feel the same, but for me it just isn't D&D anymore. My pet peeve is the magic system. It's efficient, balanced, mostly easily adjudicated. Even the ritual rules are elegant, but the result just doesn't feel like D&D.

I cannot disagree more. It took the feel of 3e for me and got rid of the cruft. It feels as DND to me as 3e did, but is now easier to run.

 

[Ginnel]

I fear we are getting into the alignment of different members here.


Hands up who is True Neutral?

surely you mean unaligned? *ducks*