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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="delericho" data-source="post: 4050372" data-attributes="member: 22424">It's a fairly large topic. Where to begin...Firstly, I was annoyed about the decision to end Dragon & Dungeon magazines. Academically, I understand why it was done, but the needs of Wizards' bottom line do not improve the quality of my gaming experience one whit. Given how badly they appear to have dropped the ball with the electronic versions of these magazines, that's a big strike against them.Secondly, there was what felt like an excess of anti-3e statements coming from WotC with the 4e announcement. I have has a great deal of fun with that system over the last nine years, despite it's flaws; don't try to persuade me that the game was somehow broken or unfun because it just won't fly.Thirdly, I don't like the Wizards policy of "spreading out the core". Again, this makes a lot of sense from a business perspective, and I understand why it is being done, but the needs of Wizards' bottom line do not improve the quality of my gaming experience one whit.Fourthly, they really have done a good job of un-selling me on the game. A case in point was the handling of the approved playtester comments thing. When Mouseferatu first commented on his positive experiences, it made a huge difference - I had been about to give up hope on the game, but positive comments from a designer I respect led me to think that maybe I should withold judgement for a little longer. But then there came rumblings that maybe these comments were censored, that this was perhaps all goodfacts authorised by Wizards as part of their propaganda. And then it emerged that actually there was an email. Now, the restriction to only pass on the positive, while reporting the negative to them is entirely sensible, and I accept that on a rational level. But marketing isn't about the rational, it's about perception, and the perception wasn't good.Fifth, and this is nothing whatsoever to do with Wizards, it seems that every time a complaint about 4e is raised here, no matter how rational or well thought out, it was met by the "amen chorus", a bunch of posters who would not brook any criticism of the next big thing. Now, I should note that there is a set of anti-4e posters who are just as vehement (and there were people like Razz also, who had the effect of polarising discussion a great deal), but since I have been shifting to the anti-4e position myself, it was the rabid pro-4e posters who I found most irksome. The effect of this, anyway, was to make discussion of the upcoming edition less enjoyable, and by extension my enthusiasm for the edition waned a great deal.Truth be told, though, these are all fairly minor things. Then there are the specifics of the game itself.Sixth, there is a flavour element in the new game that I find offensive. That probably says more about me than the game, truth be told. But, as long as it's there, I'm voting with my wallet.Seventh, I'm not keen on the new policy of monsters not being built on the same lines as PCs, as was the case in 3e.Eighth, despite claims that the game is going to become simpler to play and run, there have been a number of hidden complexities. Elven aura powers, and those expanded terrain effects are easy to write, and seem simple on a read through, but in play they add a whole new layer of problems. What's my perception bonus? Well, no longer can I just look at my character sheet - at least one applicable bonus is on someone else's sheet.Ninth, there are the reversals of cool things that I thought were going in. When we heard about wizard implements, and different implements affecting different spells differently, I thought that was really cool. Then we were informed that all implements would affect all spells the same. Bummer. The bugbear strangler uses a cool and exciting special maneuver in combat. Cool. Then it turns out that it is a unique ability to that monster, and the game won't really allow PCs to do that sort of thing. Bummer.Tenth, and finally, there are the breaks with reality, which have become too bad in my estimation. The whole diagonal movement thing kills the game for me. Square fireballs, and round towers with corners in? Not for me, thanks. And while I can house-rule this (assuming, of course, they don't put another layer of rules in place to correct the mess they've made), this will take my list of definate house rules to a point where it is longer than any list I've ever used for 3e.So, there it is. I don't expect many people to agree with all the points, and I suspect a lot of people won't agree with any of them (I just hope no-one is actually offended). And I know that they're not entirely rational in every case (can't blame Wizards for the state of discussion on message boards). Still, the question was asked, and that's the answer.</blockquote>

Verification