waysoftheearth
First Post
Hello Forum Members,
Before you read this you should know that I haven't played 4E yet. I have read the rules entirely at least twice... and for what it's worth here's my impressions so far:
I had high expectations of 4E. I really wanted it to be great. I had my core rule books pre-ordered many months ago, and had them in hand about an hour after they became available. Now that I've spent a few days with 4E I can't seem to shake a growing feeling of disappointment.
So what's wrong?
The standard of the physical product isn't what I thought it would be. The pages seem thin, and are covered in a shiny veneer which is annoyingly reflective. More surprisingly, the pages don't even lie flat or flush together -- instead they lie wavily atop on another, and are unevenly cut around the edges. Some of the headings are not a single, clear, black typeset, but are instead a blurry CMYK foursome. And worst of all, the hardback covers warped within an hour of being removed from the plastic shrink wrap. My PHB doesn't even close neatly anymore -- instead the right-most edge of the front cover floats half an inch open.
A bit disappointing, but it's what's in the books that matters most, right?
So, onto the content. The very first thing I noticed was that there is a lot less of it than in the previous edition. Quality beats quantity every time, but I was quite surprised that 4E was so much briefer. Some quick counting revealed that the 4E core rule books combined are about 125 pages shorter than 3.5E, and are conveyed in fewer than 2/3rds as many words.
The rules must be communicated more succinctly then, I tell myself, and read on.
Yes, some stuff has been cut. Barbarians, bards, druids, monks, sorcerers, half-orcs, gnomes and multi-classed characters are all gone. The equipment lists have been cut back too. But that is not it.
The thing is this: There seems to have been a real shift toward a functional game. I agree that it is great to have a beautiful game system that is easy to play. But even at the expense of what it is meant to describe?
In previous editions of D&D, the emphasis was largely on form before function. Skills, feats, spells and so on were described in terms of what they did in the game world. The mechanics of how they worked within the rules was secondary. Sure, many times the rules themselves might have been broken -- but since you knew what the intent was within the game world, you could easily "fix" the rules so that function served form.
In 4E the pendulum has swung the other way. Function reigns supreme. PC feats and powers and so on are described in term of game mechanics. There is little if any attempt to suspend our disbelief -- the short descriptive phrases accompanying many of the PC powers feel adolescent and gimmicky. These descriptive passages are even referred to as "flavour text", cementing the prose (such as it is) as unnecessary fluff around the actual mechanics.
The equipment prices also seem to reflect game function rather than materials and craftsmanship. The fact that many items cost a multiple of 5 gp is clearly intended to make calculations easier for players, but ends up being another detraction from the believability of the game world.
Finally, on character design, I can't help but feeling that the designers have tried to do too much thinking for the players. This might be great for new players, but it is so limiting for veterans.
That there are fewer character classes will no doubt be remedied with future releases. But there is less also less of a distinction between classes -- a 4E class seems to be just bags of feats and powers to choose from. Because any character can do anything, a player's choice of class is far less significant.
And although a few stereotypical variations are provided for each class (called builds) these also seem to decrease the player's choices rather than increase them. The designers have fleshed out these stock builds -- making many key choices for us -- so that it is easy to create one of these characters. But as many PC powers are tied directly to these "stock builds", there seems to be less incentive for players to explore unanticipated synergies in the rules and design their own builds. I really hope there is more to it than this.
So I guess my fundamental disappointment is that, upon reading only, 4E seems to have become far less believable. It seems so much more a game now, and so much less an experience.
I reeeeally hope that the game play will relieve my concerns.
Thanks for reading
Before you read this you should know that I haven't played 4E yet. I have read the rules entirely at least twice... and for what it's worth here's my impressions so far:
I had high expectations of 4E. I really wanted it to be great. I had my core rule books pre-ordered many months ago, and had them in hand about an hour after they became available. Now that I've spent a few days with 4E I can't seem to shake a growing feeling of disappointment.
So what's wrong?
The standard of the physical product isn't what I thought it would be. The pages seem thin, and are covered in a shiny veneer which is annoyingly reflective. More surprisingly, the pages don't even lie flat or flush together -- instead they lie wavily atop on another, and are unevenly cut around the edges. Some of the headings are not a single, clear, black typeset, but are instead a blurry CMYK foursome. And worst of all, the hardback covers warped within an hour of being removed from the plastic shrink wrap. My PHB doesn't even close neatly anymore -- instead the right-most edge of the front cover floats half an inch open.
A bit disappointing, but it's what's in the books that matters most, right?
So, onto the content. The very first thing I noticed was that there is a lot less of it than in the previous edition. Quality beats quantity every time, but I was quite surprised that 4E was so much briefer. Some quick counting revealed that the 4E core rule books combined are about 125 pages shorter than 3.5E, and are conveyed in fewer than 2/3rds as many words.
The rules must be communicated more succinctly then, I tell myself, and read on.
Yes, some stuff has been cut. Barbarians, bards, druids, monks, sorcerers, half-orcs, gnomes and multi-classed characters are all gone. The equipment lists have been cut back too. But that is not it.
The thing is this: There seems to have been a real shift toward a functional game. I agree that it is great to have a beautiful game system that is easy to play. But even at the expense of what it is meant to describe?
In previous editions of D&D, the emphasis was largely on form before function. Skills, feats, spells and so on were described in terms of what they did in the game world. The mechanics of how they worked within the rules was secondary. Sure, many times the rules themselves might have been broken -- but since you knew what the intent was within the game world, you could easily "fix" the rules so that function served form.
In 4E the pendulum has swung the other way. Function reigns supreme. PC feats and powers and so on are described in term of game mechanics. There is little if any attempt to suspend our disbelief -- the short descriptive phrases accompanying many of the PC powers feel adolescent and gimmicky. These descriptive passages are even referred to as "flavour text", cementing the prose (such as it is) as unnecessary fluff around the actual mechanics.
The equipment prices also seem to reflect game function rather than materials and craftsmanship. The fact that many items cost a multiple of 5 gp is clearly intended to make calculations easier for players, but ends up being another detraction from the believability of the game world.
Finally, on character design, I can't help but feeling that the designers have tried to do too much thinking for the players. This might be great for new players, but it is so limiting for veterans.
That there are fewer character classes will no doubt be remedied with future releases. But there is less also less of a distinction between classes -- a 4E class seems to be just bags of feats and powers to choose from. Because any character can do anything, a player's choice of class is far less significant.
And although a few stereotypical variations are provided for each class (called builds) these also seem to decrease the player's choices rather than increase them. The designers have fleshed out these stock builds -- making many key choices for us -- so that it is easy to create one of these characters. But as many PC powers are tied directly to these "stock builds", there seems to be less incentive for players to explore unanticipated synergies in the rules and design their own builds. I really hope there is more to it than this.
So I guess my fundamental disappointment is that, upon reading only, 4E seems to have become far less believable. It seems so much more a game now, and so much less an experience.
I reeeeally hope that the game play will relieve my concerns.
Thanks for reading
