D&D 4E Opinions on the 4E preview books...

[The Little Raven]

Hell, yeah. If WotC ever decides to make any of those available as posters--especially the two-page spreads--I'd buy damn near all of them.

I am with you there. My walls would be decked out in the fully glory of the new D&D world, along with that badass inside-cover piece from R&C with all the races in individual columns.

The thing about 3e's art, especially during the lead-up to the release, was that it was new and different... dungeonpunk was relatively unknown in 1999, when the first art pieces starting showing up.. The thing about 4e's art is that it is new, yet familiar, and that evokes nostalgia in me, while also making me look forward to what's new and shiny.

 

[SteveC]

Being finally able to leaf through the books, I have to say they look fantastic.

On art alone they are worth something -- especially worlds and monsters: there is some amazing art there.

As far as the content goes, meh.

I think if WotC had released the content as the "countdown to 4E" they would have been lauded as having some of the best previews ever. As pay content, I'm not impressed.

Taking all in all, I like the books as art, but think they're a bit overpriced with that in mind.

I'd recommend picking them up if you like art books, especially if you can find them at a discount.

--Steve

 

[Mighty Halfling]

Just for the record, I asked at my FLGS whether they had to pay to stock those preview books or not.

They do...and they're not selling well.

If they don't sell, the FLGS eats the cost...until they pass it along to you in the form of increased prices or by going out of biz.

My FLGS reports the same thing: Selling poorly. He had two or three copies of each.

 

[Drkfathr1]

All of the Comic/Game shops and major book sellers are sold out here in Louisville. At least as far as I've seen. I had to order both off of Amazon in order to get them, which is nice since they're a little cheaper that way.

As for the two page spread of races in Races and Classes....anyone else notice the extra race? The dude with the long black hair holding the sword with the Illumian style glyphs circling his head? Anyone think that may be the replacement for the Aassimar?

 

[FireLance]

As for the two page spread of races in Races and Classes....anyone else notice the extra race? The dude with the long black hair holding the sword with the Illumian style glyphs circling his head? Anyone think that may be the replacement for the Aassimar?

Personally, I think it's the half-elf, giving the eight races in the first PH.

 

[Artoomis]

I declined to vote due to the lack of a choice of:

What a scam! Books whose content about a yet-to-be-published rulest wherein the books' content may not even be valid after publication of the rules. What a marketing coup for WotC - a way to fleece folks of cash without actually telling us anything.

A savvy move by WotC to make some money!

 

[tomBitonti]

Why I dislike the books

This post expresses a strong point of view. I'd try to mute the expression, but I can't without removing the essential content. Reading a response in another thread (see below) keyed me in to a reason why I'm unsettled about the whole 4E release. As an aside, I have looked through the books, and found that they have good production values, and are comparatively well priced based solely on these values. However, I still checked "hate" on the survey response. ("Hate" is too strong, but the poll doesn't have a better fit for my response.)

Basically, I don't think I'm getting honest information. Not exactly being lied to, but being provided with strongly colored information that has key omissions.

This post by Rellek sums my discontent:

I disagree that this is being done as a primary design goal of the 4e design team. I think, rather, that it is being done because they recognize it as what they can best realize under their actual primary goal, namely the consolidation of as much IP as possible under the D&D brand, and making the DDI subscription as required as possible without slapping a “required” label on it.

What this has to do with the books is that I don't buy all of the "design philosophy" statements. I find a lot of it to be dissembling to distract from changes to the business model and IP strategy and target customer base.

 

[pemerton]

What a scam! Books whose content about a yet-to-be-published rulest wherein the books' content may not even be valid after publication of the rules. What a marketing coup for WotC - a way to fleece folks of cash without actually telling us anything.

Have you read or looked at W&M? If not, I can suggest that you do. It is full of good ideas about how to design a fantasy world for RPGing which (i) is a vehicle for exploration in the course of a game, rather than a literary construction which is entirely settled prior to the game (which I find to be the problem with many current D&D settings like FR, Planescape etc) and (ii) supports classic D&D play rather than social/political play.

For those who are interested, it also tells us a bit about the nature of the 4e world.

Basically, I don't think I'm getting honest information. Not exactly being lied to, but being provided with strongly colored information that has key omissions.

<snip remarks about IP and PI>

What this has to do with the books is that I don't buy all of the "design philosophy" statements. I find a lot of it to be dissembling to distract from changes to the business model and IP strategy and target customer base.

As I replied to Rellek in the other thread, I don't see this. What is the difference between the Blood War of Batazu (sp?) versus Tanari (sp?), and the ancient conflict between Gods and Primordials, from the point of view of copyright and trademark law? I'm not the worlds greatest IP lawyer, but I don't see any.

If you actually want to find a "conspiracy" in W&M you don't have to look very far, and there is no dissimulating: on every second page they tell us that they have re-imagined (or as they like to put it in managerialist English, "reconcepted") creature X or race Y so as to make it more likely to turn up in combats, and so as to facilitate cool miniatures for our collections. This shows a completely overt goal of making money by selling miniatures.

But that doesn't invalidate their other design claims. I personally don't own any miniatures and (having got by without them for 25 years of playing) probably never will. But I can still see why it is important, in D&D, that creatures be designed to facilitate conflict with them. D&D is a game in which combat is the primary method of modelling and resolving conflicts. It is a sign of the design cleverness in W&M that they have worked out ways to facilitate this without undermining the moral dimensions of the fantasy world which many people find an important aspect of fantasy RPGing.

 

[Voss]

Blood War, Tanari and Baatzu would be easier to control as IPs than something as nebulous as god vs primordial conflict. On the other hand, a lot of the monsters in the MM are getting the compound names (Blackwoods Dryad, and other adjectivenoun monsters) specifically for more IP control. They can't claim rights to dryads as a whole, but they can make claims to blackwoods dryads, and related concepts. Which is why the Feywild is not Faerie and the Shadowfell isn't just Shadow or Shade.

So I do think the IP issues are real, but I suspect they don't dwell on them for reasons other than dishonesty. Short version: its dull. It doesn't sell the preview books or 4e itself. Is it important? Sure. Legal claims are part and parcel of the modern world.

As far as DDI goes, I think its irrelevant. There isn't much of a functional way to require it. Even if they hide half-orcs and bards in it, I honestly don't care. If it isn't actually in the books, I'm under no compulsion to pay extra money to use the material. And at the table, I really don't think any of the DDI features are actually useful.

And ultimately, I don't think its a project they can maintain. They're failing to manage the content-light preview version, and I don't think its going to get any better. They also don't have any reasonable means of protecting the material either. If one person in a group of 5 pays for a month of service every 6 to 12 months, downloads everything the group wants, and then cancels their subscription, there isn't much WotC can do about it.

 

[Lord Fyre]

And ultimately, I don't think its a project they can maintain. They're failing to manage the content-light preview version, and I don't think its going to get any better. They also don't have any reasonable means of protecting the material either. If one person in a group of 5 pays for a month of service every 6 to 12 months, downloads everything the group wants, and then cancels their subscription, there isn't much WotC can do about it.

Don't underestimate the power or ruthlessness of WoTC's jackbooted thugs!