D&D 4E Rant on the 4E "Presentation"

[ThirdWizard]

YMMV, and obviously does.

No surprise on either of our parts, methinks.

 

[Charwoman Gene]

You are holding onto a rope of sand.

Square-based Movement is no less mini-centric than AD&D's inch-based movement.

You hate 4e. Great. Move on.
Stop trying to squeeze it into boxes like "They Lied, they are evil"

 

[The Little Raven]

I keep picturing the WoTC previews as the Army talking to Michael Bay. "And then it's all like Boom! and then there's this explosion and it's so cool and..."

Except that things like detailing the background of the cosmology and implied setting fits more in with Mel Gibson's suggestions about examining character background (say what you want, but the man does understand story structure!), than in with Michael Bay's tumbling 18-wheeler.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Square-based Movement is no less mini-centric than AD&D's inch-based movement.

This is true; of course, that is not the sum total of my analysis. Nor is the question whether or not 4e is more mini-centric than 1e.

You hate 4e. Great. Move on.

About 50% of what I've seen re: 4e I like; about 50% I do not like. Hate is rather a strong emotion for a game one doesn't have to play. Whether I will like 4e or not remains to be seen.....and is frankly irrelevant to whether or not WotC lied, or whether or not WotC is handling its PR campaign well.

I am guessing that you missed Piratecat's post earlier? Please do not tell me what my motives are.

I have played every edition of this game from the Holmes Blue Box to the present day. I would really, really like to love 4e. However, I am not happy with the PR campaign thus far. Yes, I would be far happier if WotC said "Yeah, we bent the truth to keep it under wraps, sorry about that" than claiming never to have done so. Or, for that matter, simply not complaining about people being upset because you misled them. To me, claiming to have been upfront while being misleading is insulting....it assumes that you don't have the intelligence to realize that you were being misled.

Stop trying to squeeze it into boxes like "They Lied, they are evil"

I hope you realize that "they lied" =/= "they are evil".

You will notice also, I hope, that I suggest people examine what evidence there is, and decide for themselves. I'm not the one creating straw men because not everyone believes as I do.

RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

No surprise on either of our parts, methinks.

I can respect your opinion without necessarily agreeing, and I feel certain that you can do the same.

 

[JoeGKushner]

Except that things like detailing the background of the cosmology and implied setting fits more in with Mel Gibson's suggestions about examining character background (say what you want, but the man does understand story structure!), than in with Michael Bay's tumbling 18-wheeler.

Considering the changes we've heard for 4e Forgotten Realms, which includes a LOT of booms, I'm going to disagree.

 

[The Little Raven]

Considering the changes we've heard for 4e Forgotten Realms, which includes a LOT of booms, I'm going to disagree.

Except that all we've heard is what happened in Grand History of the Realms. And that information, honestly, is very, very little.

The god of strife murdering his hated enemy, the goddess of magic, with the help of the goddess of darkness draws much more firmly on the background of all of those characters, and presents a believable and consistent story structure for that event.

More so, than say... training drillers to be astronauts in the matter of weeks.

 

[Vigilance]

Considering the changes we've heard for 4e Forgotten Realms, which includes a LOT of booms, I'm going to disagree.

If "booms" are the standard by which something becomes a Michael Bay movie these days, then FR has been a Michael Bay movie since the time of troubles.

 

[JoeGKushner]

If "booms" are the standard by which something becomes a Michael Bay movie these days, then FR has been a Michael Bay movie since the time of troubles.

Can you point out the edition boom between 2nd to 3rd and from 3e to 3.5?

I must've missed those. I saw a few things incorporated into the setting that could've easily been worked out with a few lines of text and appropriate location spotlightting but that's about it.

 

[JoeGKushner]

So Chuck, you're saying that if they go..

Month One Core:

Humans... talk about humans in the game. Talk about how they were actually in the monster manual. Talk about how many sword and sorcery fiction books that initially inspired the game were all about the humans, etc... would be too much? Talk about how 3e was one of the first editions to bring some actual game mechanics to the humans that wasn't, "Hey, we're average." and how 4e is going to continue to embrace that. There could be a weekly article about some of the standard roles humans are expected to fill and each one can come with a game mechanic. I mean if they give us that very specific bit about rangers and their shot return power, surely that's not too much?

And for classes....

Fighters. Talk about the fighters traditional role in the game. Talk about how 3e made some of the biggest changes to the class not only in terms of giving, via the bonus feats but also in taking away with the elimination of % strength and Con bonuses for everyone and what roles the fighter can take in 4e, that I'd be upset?

You're right. We do have eight months. But in that eight months, since they keep touting how much better an electronic Dragon is, they've got a lot of shoes to fill and if the print Dragon could do a lot, the online version can too.

(My opinion on the counterattack was yeah, that was "Boom!" It's so cool" thing btw. Just my opinion mind you.)

Again, there has been WAY more specifics than that.

It's not all glittering generalities.

No, they haven't shown us an entire character class, but knowing that rangers will be able to counterattack with a bow when missed by a surprise attack is hardly "BOOM! It's so cool!"

Not to mention, you just revealed what I think is the problem for people demanding "more more".

Nothing other than the books will satisfy you.

You want to know how a class will be worth playing and balanced at EVERY LEVEL?

Seriously, think about what you'd have to know, to have that information.

You'd have to have the whole class.

And all the other classes, because its only viable if it isn't completely overshadowed by the other classes right?

Sheesh.

Chuck