Responses to the 4e hater Questions.

471 posts / 0 new
Last post
Respecting another Poster's thread.
TedKordLives;18063443 wrote:
Let's not let this continue in this thread. If you just HAVE to respond, and can't control yourself, do it through PM or start a different thread. Definitely don't get snooty with each other and then excuse it by saying, "BTW I totally respect your opinions. They're just all wrong." There's no point in nitpicking everyone's opinions here, or getting into full-blown debates over the nature of something as subjective as what "roleplaying" really means.

This thread is designed to keep the other thread on-topic.

I suggest taking posts you disagree with from [thread=1159781]An honest question for the haters[/thread] or responding to other poster's responses.
Perhaps this thread will hold together as long as [thread=1106807]Warweaver's Thread[/thread]. If not, at least TKL's thread doesn't get locked.
D&D 4E Herald and M:tG Rules Advisor I expect posters to follow the Code of Conduct, use Basic Etiquette, and avoid Poor Logic. If you don't follow these guidelines, I consider you to be disrespectful to everyone on these forums. If you respond to me without following these guidelines, I consider it a personal attack. I grew up in a bilingual household, which means I am familiar with the difficulties in adopting a different vocabulary and grammar. That doesn't bother me. Persistent use of bad capitalization, affirming the consequent, and flaming bother me a great deal.
Rule that I would change: 204.1b
204.1b Some effects change an object’s card type, supertype, or subtype but specify that the object retains a prior card type, supertype, or subtype. In such cases, all the object’s prior card types, supertypes, and subtypes are retained. This rule applies to effects that use the phrase “in addition to its types” or that state that something is “still a [card type].” Some effects state that an object becomes an “artifact creature”; these effects also allow the object to retain all of its prior card types and subtypes.
"Eight Edition Rules Update" We eventually decided not to change this template, because players are used to “becomes an artifact creature,” and like it much better.
Players were used to Combat on the Stack, but you got rid of that because it was unintuitive. The only phrase needed is "in addition to its types"; the others are misleading and unintuitive.
I've been reading over the other thread, and noticed there seems to be some recurrence in "haters" voicing their complaints here not to dissuade people from playing 4E, but as a means to communicate with the designers in the hopes of changing the game for what they hope will be better.

What I'm wondering is why they chose this particular medium for communicating their dislikes. Why not go through customer services? It stands to reason that they are better equipped to organize and communicate customer feedback than these forums are. I mean think about it. The posts here are disorganized and a thread title is seldom very descriptive of the nature of complaints, not to mention that threads get derailed, closed off, or end up forgotten more often than not.

Now, that's not to say that all of these forums fair poorly in communicating customer feedback. The errata boards are godsends in that they address specific topics and discussions are generally oriented towards identifying and suggesting corrections for what are likely errors in mechanics. However, when providing general negative feedback (especially when the criticism isn't constructive) isn't suited for those forums and it's likely to inflame regulars here who come to discuss the game they enjoy.

Given these, I'm starting to wonder what is really to be gained by voicing dislikes here. I don't doubt that these people have no agenda to convince others from abandoning 4E (for the most part). However, could it be that "haters" are actually looking for like-minded people who share their dislikes? Is this essentially just a quest for validation?
Customer Service is about as organized as a bunch of a drunken sheep.

Customer Service: 50% accurate, 100% unofficial. :P

At least, that's my view of the WotC CS so far, even their e-mail and phone services are sloppy.
Customer Service is about as organized as a bunch of a drunken sheep.

Customer Service: 50% accurate, 100% unofficial. :P

At least, that's my view of the WotC CS so far, even their e-mail and phone services are sloppy.

Be that as it may, how are these forums any better? I'd like to think that CS does fair better, if only because they have more direct means of communicating feedback than the forums do.
Oh I wasn't disagreeing with you, simple showing off an example as to the "why" those who have complaints with 4E voice their opinion's here instead of at the Customer Service forum and/or other available media. Between the choice of two evils, more people will choose the easier, less of the two in order to see their goals met. Given the nature of the CS as I have witnessed it, I find it no surprise that those 4E objectionists would rather try their luck on these forums then the more appropriate one, yes?
Except even if CS gives inaccurate responses, they are still the people who can pass complaints along to the developers. If you post in 4E threads your general dislike of 4E, in the hopes of catching a developer's eye, you're in much worse shape. In fact, I would say it's counterproductive, as it makes the person voicing the complaint in a manner that appears deisgned to be disruptive to be a troll (whether he or is not is immaterial to this point) who is seeking attention.

That's going to be true whenever there is an established way to voice a complaint (like writing to Customer Service) but someone chooses a more public display of anger (like posting to a message board).

It's one thing to post a constructive realistic suggestion (as is often posited on errata boards) for 4th edition. It's another to try to use this board as a venue to, for example, shape a future 5th edition.

If someone is looking merely for validation, the Previous Edition General Discussion Board would be the place to go for that. The 4th edition board is less likely to have people dissatisfied with 4th edition than the Previous Edition Boards.

To me, that leaves: 1) schadenfeude, in which you gain pleasure in insulting other people's pastime, 2) spite, in which you are simply trying to disrupt other people's discussions in an effort to vent one's frustrations, and 3) conversion, in which you hope that your concerns might convince someone who likes 4e (or is on the fence) to switch over and join you in whatever system you enjoy rather than 4e.
Customer Service is about as organized as a bunch of a drunken sheep.

Customer Service: 50% accurate, 100% unofficial. :P

At least, that's my view of the WotC CS so far, even their e-mail and phone services are sloppy.

But he's not talking about asking CS a rules question, which your quote refers to, he's wondering why not send your complaints directly to the company, instead of complaining on a forum dedicated to fans of the product?
Chandrak's awesome solutions to the 5-minute workday 'problem'
97183719 wrote:
Seeing as there is a disconnect between balance (quantifiable) and fun, (subjective and personal) discussing fun in a thread about balance because you find one system more enjoyable than another is as helpful as discussing religion in a thread about architectural engineering because you think cathedrals look prettier than outhouses.
...he's wondering why not send your complaints directly to the company, instead of complaining on a forum dedicated to fans of the product?

I can only speculate myself; I enjoy 4E. There are sections I have personally disagreements with, but none enough to stop me from liking the game as is, with a few minor house rules and such. So, don't ask me, ask a 4E Objectionist.
I believe most others, as I do, honestly want to see the system improve, because they are unhappy with it as it exists, and they see that everyone they play with feels likewise. We're hoping that by bringing this to the attention of a WotC forum, they'll realize the negative impact their new game is having on the fanbase, and make adjustments to fix it.

Essentially, we want the game to improve, and by showing our disatisfaction in a polite, but consistent and unrelenting manner, we will see the game fixed, in time.
I believe most others, as I do, honestly want to see the system improve, because they are unhappy with it as it exists, and they see that everyone they play with feels likewise. We're hoping that by bringing this to the attention of a WotC forum, they'll realize the negative impact their new game is having on the fanbase, and make adjustments to fix it.

Essentially, we want the game to improve, and by showing our disatisfaction in a polite, but consistent and unrelenting manner, we will see the game fixed, in time.

How is this more effective than sending feedback to [email]dndinsider@wizards.com[/email]? Do you seriously believe that the game designers have the time to read each and every single thread in this forum? Why is this medium appropriate to your objective?
Essentially, we want the game to improve, and by showing our disatisfaction in a polite, but consistent and unrelenting manner, we will see the game fixed, in time.

Then let me disabuse you of this notion.

You're doing it wrong. In fact, you are hurting your own cause. As someone who has advised numerous companies on public relations and communications, I can tell you right now that 99.99% of companies see negative unfocused chatter (even when presented in a non-insulting manner) on message boards as nonsense. Disregardable nonsense. Whether that is a good idea or a bad idea is immaterial for our purposes. That's how the world works and if you want to actually affect change, then you need to pursue the most productive means of affecting change. This isn't it.

If you are earnest in wanting the company to change its ways, you have three and only three options.
1) Vote with your wallet. Don't buy stuff you don't like. (I assume you already do this with respect to 4e.)

2) Contact Customer Service. When doing so, you should use your real name. You should voice specific complaints in a reasoned logical manner. You should explain your history with the game and you should explain why you think your suggestions should be heeded. Your letter should be focused on things the company can do going forward, not merely berating them for perceived mistakes of the past.

3) Be Specific. If you insist on posting comments here, then restrict them to very specific suggestions, not criticisms. Criticisms will be disregarded, because they don't represent anything the company can do. A suggestion is something a company could actually act upon. However, the suggestion must be realistic. Suggesting that 4e be scrapped, for instance, is not a realistic suggestion. Suggestions should be supplemented by clear reasons for their implementation that should amount to more than personal preference.

Common pitfalls.
A) Claiming that one's preference has community support. This indicates to executives and developers that the person is covering an insecurity in their position. This is so even if the executives' own market research indicate that your personal preference really does have community support. A suggestion should stand or fall on the merits, not some claimed popularity.

B) Confusing emotion with argument. A suggestion that you care about passionately is no more valid that a suggestion of which your have only tepid feelings. Exclamation points, capitalization, insults and other signs of emotion do not render your suggestion more credible.

C) Inappropriate metaphors. No matter how much you think D&D resembles, say Smurfs, making the analogy is not a suggestion. It comes across as an attempt to deflect weaknesses in an argument by criticizing something else you also don't like, and hoping the person reading the analogy also doesn't like that other thing, and that you can get him to transfer his negative emotions from the other thing back to D&D. The only people who find that persuasive are people who already agree with you and that should not be your intended audience.

Follow these suggestions and you'll have a much better chance of getting TPTB to listen to you.
Be that as it may, how are these forums any better? I'd like to think that CS does fair better, if only because they have more direct means of communicating feedback than the forums do.

Well I like the forums to bounce ideas around. I can say "I hate 4E because X" to customer service but what purpose does that produce. Now if I say it hear other respond hopefully in a constructive manner. Ideas are bounced around maybe a house rule comes of it or maybe I begin to understand why X is there. If enough discussion on a certain topic produces good enough results that WotC notice maybe they put it in the next edition, errata, new book or what ever. If not then maybe I come back with something I can use to make 4E better or how to take what I do like about 4E and use it in 3E. It's all good in my opinion but it breaks down when bickering take over and a thread becomes "I'm right" vs "No you're not" and degenerate into "Yes I am" vs "No your not".
No disrespect to the players who play 4E, but I thoroughly read the PHB and the DMG, and I must say that it would have gone much better if this game were NOT called Dungeons and Dragons. This has no relevance to any of the other editions, it's completely new, spells have pretty much vanished (since there were almost 500 spells in the last edition)... there are races and classes that FORCE you to be something you may not want to be in the first place. Like, you MUST be a battle cleric in order to use a cleric properly. You can't be a Sit-Back Full Support cleric like in 3.5e. Two Weapon Fighters do very little more damage than One Handed Fighters in this edition, when there was a significant difference in 3.5e. The rules in combat are all over the place. The 2nd wind, what you would call 'spells' in this edition, magical items, battle styles, etc., are insanely complicated. This edition has completely rearranged every rule that made D&D.... D&D! Which doesn't give alot of D&D players the FEEL of it being D&D anymore. It's like a whole different game, and thus, it should have been called a completely different game. Also, what I find in this game is that the character sheet is all over the place as well. There are things on a character sheet that could really be co-mingled with other things on the sheet, to relieve some clutter. The sheet looks like a bunch of scribble from 3rd graders.

Things I DO like about 4E are very limited (because this edition is just so... BAD), but I must say I do love the fact that the Experience table is IN THE MM where it should be. None of this CR4, MUST LOOK IN DMG FOR THE CR TABLE crap. The experience is written RIGHT THERE in the MM. Vast improvement. Just like AD&D 2nd edition.
The problem is

1) A lot of people don't want to make the game better. They just want to see the world burn.

2) They want attention, and making unpopular statements while following the letter (not the intent) of the rules on this forum makes them feel good.

3) Despite being on the information highway, most people here are just plain ignorant. They've only played D&D with ten different people in their lifetime, and they claim to know what D&D is. James Wyatt, Rob Heinsoo, Stephen Schubert, and the other D&D designers are already light-years ahead on game theory and experience revolving around D&D. Most of the brainfarts occuring here are of no use to them except as a barometer of people's moods.

If people really want to understand 4ed, they can buy the books and play them. If they want to affect the next edition, they can post their experiences playing with the system, to show the future designers the preferred uses and undesire downfalls of the current edition, and LET THEM FIGURE OUT HOW TO MAKE IT BETTER.

"Ah, the age-old conundrum. Defenders of a game are too blind to see it's broken, and critics are too idiotic to see that it isn't." - Brian McCormick

No disrespect to the players who play 4E, but I thoroughly read the PHB and the DMG, and I must say that it would have gone much better if this game were NOT called Dungeons and Dragons.

Technically there is no "must" about it.

This has no relevance to any of the other editions, it's completely new, spells have pretty much vanished (since there were almost 500 spells in the last edition)... there are races and classes that FORCE you to be something you may not want to be in the first place. Like, you MUST be a battle cleric in order to use a cleric properly. You can't be a Sit-Back Full Support cleric like in 3.5e. Two Weapon Fighters do very little more damage than One Handed Fighters in this edition, when there was a significant difference in 3.5e. The rules in combat are all over the place. The 2nd wind, what you would call 'spells' in this edition, magical items, battle styles, etc., are insanely complicated. This edition has completely rearranged every rule that made D&D.... D&D! Which doesn't give alot of D&D players the FEEL of it being D&D anymore. It's like a whole different game, and thus, it should have been called a completely different game. Also, what I find in this game is that the character sheet is all over the place as well. There are things on a character sheet that could really be co-mingled with other things on the sheet, to relieve some clutter. The sheet looks like a bunch of scribble from 3rd graders.

This is exactly what I was talking about. This isn't a suggestion. It's barely a criticism. It's just a statement of emotion. (The word "feel" is even capitalized to emphasize the fact that is an argument from emotion, not reason.) I don't get what feasible reason there would be for making such a statement. Are you realistically expecting people who like the game to all agree "Okay. We'll call it Grottos and Goblins"?

I mean, even if it were formatted with actual coherent paragraphs, even if it didn't gratuitously compare the developers to third-graders, even if it didn't use capitalization in an effort to emphasize the emotions the poster possessed, what's the goal here? It's just sound and fury. There's not a single suggestion except, implicitly, "Don't do this in the future." But that's not a sensible suggestion.
To Alter Boy:

If it were up to them and up to them only, and if they don't listen to their fanbase (even those of older editions), they will sink like TSR because we would think: "Okay, to those who have issues and you don't listen... what's that telling your players? SHUT UP, THIS IS WHAT IT IS AND YOUR OPINIONS DON'T MATTER BECAUSE IN THE END, IT'S UP TO US AND YOU PLAY IT!"

Not very good marketing idea. *Shakes head*
Actually, they do listen to their customers. But they don't cut and paste ideas from the web to the newest PHB. Good designers have years of experience playing the game and listening to opinions. Each new voice is a drop in the bucket that influences design.

"Ah, the age-old conundrum. Defenders of a game are too blind to see it's broken, and critics are too idiotic to see that it isn't." - Brian McCormick

If it were up to them and up to them only, and if they don't listen to their fanbase

There is nothing to listen to in your post except emotion. For developers to listen, there need to be constructive suggestions. All you did was list in a fairly incoherent manner, a rambling diatribe of comments and unsupported theses, lacking proper context, proper grammar, proper paragraph style and proper support.

Even if you had sent it in letter form to Customer Service, it would have ended in the trash bin because it didn't contain any substance. And that's true pretty much for any company that you might make such a diatribe towards.

Again, if you are sincere in wanting WotC to change, you are going about it incorrectly. You are hurting your own cause by posting in the manner you are posting.
wrecan, what I am saying is that people should listen to those who don't like it on the same level as the ones that do and come to a compromise. I expressed my dislikes for 4e but I did make a compliment. But there is just so much change that this is a completely different game. This isn't like 2e going to 3e, because the foundation of the game remained intact. They just mainly changed the base of THAC0 to the d20 system and revolved the game around it. This change from 3.5 to 4, is not just flicking on a kitchen light, it's a complete 100% revamp of the entire game with new rules, new boundaries, new limitations, new everything.
wrecan, what I am saying is that people listen to those who don't like it on the same level as the ones that do and come to a compromise. I expressed my dislikes for 4e but I did make a compliment.

The compliment is nice, but insufficient. People don't listen to white noise, which is all a criticism (and I would hesitate to even call your paragraph a criticism) is if it lacks a substantive suggestion.

Edit: Similarly, posts that say "I love 4E" but provide no support, no reason, no basis for that love, is not going to be given much attention either. All that developers should care about it are substantive suggestions for making the game better. Emotional tirades, even if they discuss positive as well as negative emotions, are useless to them and will be disregarded. If your goal is anything other than wasting people's time, you should internalize that concept in future posts.

But there is just so much change that this is a completely different game.

You'll notice I did not specifically address the "substance" of your argument. I'm not going to do so now. There would be no point.

What is the point of repeating this phrase? What do you expect to come of it? Do you really think that because of your statement that it's a different game, that I'm going to suddenly change my behavior? Are you simply looking for people to tell you that your belief is valid? If so, please go to Previous Editions, where people who prefer Previous Editions post.
See, this is where problems occur. I'm here making conversation, and here you are, thinking you're correct at everything, and in your certainty that you're right, you not only harass me for my 'paragraph-style' of writing, you harass me because I didn't make a suggestion.

I didn't put my posts in paragraph-style because I didn't intend for this to turn into some kind of English Class. I didn't know I was being marked for my perspicacity.
wrecan, it sounds like you're saying that critical input is something Wizards does not listen to on these forums, and that you, as well, simply see it as "white noise" and ignore the specifics of any such statements. Is this accurate?

I think that's fairly chilling, if so. You're acknowledging:

1: Actual willingness to ignore the wishes of potential customers, on the company's part.

2. Actual willingness to disregard the opinions of others if they are disagreeable, on your own part, and,

3. An assertion that there is nothing wrong with this, and it's the nay-sayers who should change their behaviour.

Think about this for a moment. Doesn't it make more sense for you, and the company behind the forum, to change, rather than us? Doesn't blocking out criticism as 'white noise' rob you of outside input, and condemn the product to stagnation?

I think it does, and I think you'd do yourself a service to respond to individual criticisms, acknowledging their points, and offering a reasoned response. In the same way, the company would benefit from admitting to alienating part of their market, and taking active and drastic steps to win them back.
And here we have another thread where the 4e defenders show they are holier than thou. Gee thanks Wrecan for pointing out JUST how wrong some of us are. And here I though t you were someone I respected.

And for the record - I have sent some emails of complaint and I got zero response.

Just because there are BETTER ways to do something doesn't mean our intention is to be a Jerk...although this thread is confirming that it isn't a one way street. Way to go.

I stand by what I said in the other thread. It is my way to be among the masses and I'll hope (even if its a snowballs hope in hell) that someone from WOTC is trolling these threads and something is done in the future. If you don't like it - put me on ignore.
This isn't a text war. This is where I am personally stating what I think is wrong with the game. It may not be what everyone agrees with, but there are those out there who have the same feelings or relatively the same feelings about it as I do. No, it's not about the fact that I can just say, "Ah, to hell with it, I'll just go back to 3.5" , it's a matter of, "What can we do as players and DM's to make the game better?"

Yes, I put alot of negatives in the previous post because there are hardly any positives about 4E right now. They took alot of things out. You have to admit that you can't see any relevance between 3.5 and 4e if you look at the two PHB's or the two DMG's. They have been completely re-written.

It doesn't give the players who transferred; the die-hard core 3.5 fans, the feel of D&D anymore.

Hell, when 2nd Edition turned into 3rd, It took me a bit of getting used to, but there were similarities between the two editions that let me know: "Hey, it's still D&D, even though TSR was sold. It's still got the foundation of Dungeons and Dragons, still has that feel."
So I suppose you would prefer that casters get 500 spells that they can permute and combine to become basically omnipotent while warriors have to stick with basic attacks, basic abilities, nothing out of the ordinary?

Casters had to be pared down, brought to a more reasonable level with everyone else, so their concept had to change from 'do everything' to 'do specific things'.
Panzeh, exactly.

Don't completely overpower the spellcasters, but at least balance them to be capable either in a group or by himself. I am not saying do it like 3rd edition and give the guy Wish this and Disjunction that. But completely revamp the spell list, balance the power out a bit. Let's face it, wizards in 4e don't have 30 spells to choose from on a 1st level spell list, you know?

Clerics only have 5 spells to choose from and they are only effective if you meet certain prerequisites. 4 of the 1st level abilities for a cleric are tailored to Battle Clerics only. You must be in the heat of battle to use these abilities. It almost doesn't give you the option of being a sit-back full support cleric. You must be at the forefront. Not to mention that Clerics aren't as needed as they used to be because Fighters and other classes can HEAL themselves now.
I have to disagree with Jorgandr on the Cleric point.

It's completely possible, and in fact, viable to have a "sit backs and shoots divine lasers" cleric. The "Lazer Cleric" archetype focuses on Wisdom-based implement attacks, and can function without picking up a mace if they don't want to.

A list of CharOp Handbooks I'm currently updating:

Heart of the Dragon: A Dragonborn's Handbook

Infernal Wrath: A Tiefling's Handbook

Jorgandr, that is because those are the lists of, specifically, combat-oriented spells. That is why they are the daily and encounter attack spells/prayers. Rituals have taken the place of the enormous percentage of the old spell-lists dedicated to non-combat spells, save those non-combat spells that require a swift casting. Those latter types of spells have instead been made into Utility powers. Combat is the portion of the game in which raw balance between the numbers behind classes is the most important, and thus it is the portion of the rules most in need of heavy-handed codification. That is what 4E, by and large, delivers.
Yeah, but if you put a 4e Cleric against a 3.5 cleric, the 4e Cleric is completely outgunned. That's just what some 3.5 converters are complaining about. They're used to the 'foundation of D&D' . 4e completely changed things around, so they aren't used to this. They're asking: "Where did all the powers for a cleric go?" or "Why is a Fighter so weak?"

I have to agree, the Fighters have been seriously cut in power. I've seen Rogues in 4e do more damage than Fighters. Something's up there.

Even so, support in battle saved my arse when playing a cleric in 3.5 . Even the cruddiest spells can be most effective.

In the end, I am just saying that people who are coming from 3.5 to 4th are having difficult times accepting the power decrease. It's mainly the problem.
Clerics only have 5 spells to choose from and they are only effective if you meet certain prerequisites.

How is this different from other editions? Didn't you always have to meet certain prerequisites to be effective at your class? Heck, I remember when a cleric's Wisdom score determined how many spells he could memorize at a time.

4 of the 1st level abilities for a cleric are tailored to Battle Clerics only. You must be in the heat of battle to use these abilities. It almost doesn't give you the option of being a sit-back full support cleric. You must be at the forefront.

Except that it does give you the option of being a sit-back cleric, since the other half of the 1st level abilities are ranged. Have you actually played 4th edition?

Not to mention that Clerics aren't as needed as they used to be because Fighters and other classes can HEAL themselves now.

Once per encounter, for 1/4th of their total hit points, while they're still conscious. Unless, of course, there's a CLERIC (or other type of leader) in the party. Have you actually played 4th edition?
Majority of Skills?

There's... one Strength-based skill. Athletics.

There are more Wisdom-based skills than that. Skills that Wisdom-based clerics will be better at than melee clerics.

I'm failing to see your point.

A list of CharOp Handbooks I'm currently updating:

Heart of the Dragon: A Dragonborn's Handbook

Infernal Wrath: A Tiefling's Handbook

Yes I've played 4th edition, and I have seen where my cleric offers a heal and the warrior rejects it and just heals himself.
See, this is where problems occur. I'm here making conversation, and here you are, thinking you're correct at everything, and in your certainty that you're right, you not only harass me for my 'paragraph-style' of writing, you harass me because I didn't make a suggestion.

I didn't put my posts in paragraph-style because I didn't intend for this to turn into some kind of English Class. I didn't know I was being marked for my perspicacity.

You aren't getting harassed. You're posting about how WotC should listen to you... when you aren't saying anything.
Back to my original post, it's a completely different game now, and there are those out there who just can't get used to that. It's like FINAL FANTASY.

You expect a certain foundation in Final Fantasy when you buy a new game with that name in it. The tactics and stories may change, but there's still the Final Fantasy feel.

Now what were to happen if Final Fantasy completely changed to ... say, a Legend of Zelda or Secret of Mana theme? You'd buy this new game and be like: "what the hell's going on?"

That's what 4e is doing to some 3.5 players. They look at this edition and ask, "What the hell's going on?"
I am not telling Wizards to listen to me, I am just clearing up a few reasons why people might think 4e isn't all it's cracked up to be.
There is a reason out there why this edition doesn't have 100% support. It isn't because those who don't like it are stupid or haven't played it, they just compare it to 3.5's success and are like: "I can't get into this game because it's so different".

And that's the problem... players are telling other players, "Don't compare it to 3.5 . It's completely new! It's different!"

That's the problem. It's too different
I am not telling Wizards to listen to me, I am just clearing up a few reasons why people might think 4e isn't all it's cracked up to be.

So, you're complaining about a game that I seem to enjoy to express how lame it is?

Like I'm confused or something?

Do you even know what you're here for anymore?
And that's the problem... players are telling other players, "Don't compare it to 3.5 . It's completely new! It's different!"

That's the problem. It's too different

It's a whole new edition of D&D, because it's different.

What should they have called it? Wait. Let me ask you something.

Are you just like your dad? No? Do people complain that you aren't like your dad?

I dunno, maybe they do, but that doesn't matter. That doesn't mean you don't share the same name. (Also, I'm not bringing you parent's into this. I'm speaking generally.)
There's alot of dislikes about this edition from certain players that are causing them to express their disappointment. You have to complain to get a point across. There's always a negative to a positive. You can't live without the two. There will always be those who like it, and there will always be those who don't. To those who do like it, don't tell the ones who don't like it to "Go to hell because what you say, no one cares" . That's what divides us gamers. Instead, take the time to go through their troubles, teach them, and help them learn. If they still don't like it, then it's their every day right to say so.

Same with those who dislike it. Don't harass those who say they do.

Remember, READ THE PHB AND THE DMG doesn't make the gamer a professional, and there are rules in the PHB and DMG that are very confusing. There are people out there who are much better at understanding when explained to them by another player or DM rather than just reading it. After all, if you're a student reading something and you don't understand it, you're going to raise your hand and ask the teacher for assistance. Do you hear your teacher say, "You're smart enough. Figure it out yourself, you moron." That teacher would be disciplined so fast, they could probably lose their job.
What would I have personally called it? I don't know, but again, it's like Final Fantasy. If you completely change the foundation of what Final Fantasy was, there'd be alot of peeved off gamers who would go to the forums and say, "Hey, this game is NOT Final Fantasy"

Remember the crazy amount of displeased gamers of the Junction System when FF8 came out? Yeah...

Something different though, for sure, because it's got a much different feel than D&D.


*** I admit, myself, I am a much better player when learning while playing. If I read the PHB and DMG just as it is, it'd raise a heck of a lot of questions anyway. I'd most likely ask a heck of a lot of questions while playing, because I find it much easier to understand when it's shown by another player or someone who understands it that much better. Remember, you can't do everything by yourself. There will come a time where everyone asks for help. ***
Again, you have oversimplified 3e based on a prejudice against the system.

Excuse me?
Perhaps ignorant was a poor choice of words on my part, but your oversimplification

This was to Rustmonster, not me (crazysamaritan).

Which means it isn't the same poster making the "mistake", but two different people (in theory) who believe the same thing. Doesn't prove that we are right (that casters feel the same), but it doesn't prove you right (that we just don't like 3e).

You could simplify 4e to that level too (what powers do I have left?). A 3e wizard could be played like a sorcerer, and would be an inferior sorcerer. The difference was in what tactical options each had based on the spell selection available (similar IMO to 4e's distinctions between builds and classes within a role).

Yes, I could, except in 4e, it would have to be the same class for it to be the same. The tactical options each class has left was based on [spell selection], as you said. But there are only two spells wizards could cast that sorcerers could not. Those two spells were "I'm a sorcerer" spells (Rary's Mnemonic).

as more classes/options are introduced that line will blur too.

The only way this works as an argument, is if there was a difference in 3e classes aside from the mechanics. Because if requested, I could make a gradual progression from 3e non-caster classes to a full casting class, using a combination of full classes and Prestige Classes.
20 levels non-caster, to 20 levels of caster levels.

Heh, looks like this thread is slowly spiraling out of control. It'll be a curious thing to see what exactly sets off the grand finale explosion.

I tried to create a pressure valve.
D&D 4E Herald and M:tG Rules Advisor I expect posters to follow the Code of Conduct, use Basic Etiquette, and avoid Poor Logic. If you don't follow these guidelines, I consider you to be disrespectful to everyone on these forums. If you respond to me without following these guidelines, I consider it a personal attack. I grew up in a bilingual household, which means I am familiar with the difficulties in adopting a different vocabulary and grammar. That doesn't bother me. Persistent use of bad capitalization, affirming the consequent, and flaming bother me a great deal.
Rule that I would change: 204.1b
204.1b Some effects change an object’s card type, supertype, or subtype but specify that the object retains a prior card type, supertype, or subtype. In such cases, all the object’s prior card types, supertypes, and subtypes are retained. This rule applies to effects that use the phrase “in addition to its types” or that state that something is “still a [card type].” Some effects state that an object becomes an “artifact creature”; these effects also allow the object to retain all of its prior card types and subtypes.
"Eight Edition Rules Update" We eventually decided not to change this template, because players are used to “becomes an artifact creature,” and like it much better.
Players were used to Combat on the Stack, but you got rid of that because it was unintuitive. The only phrase needed is "in addition to its types"; the others are misleading and unintuitive.