D&D 4E playtester review available on-line

126 posts / 0 new
Last post
Massawyrm at AICN has been playing D&D 4E since October. He's posting three reviews of his experiences.

Here's a link:
Part One
Part Two
Part Three

He's a die-hard 3.5 fan and he's completely blown away by how amazing 4E is.
"And nothing, I repeat, NOTHING, takes away XP anymore. No more level loss. No more XP to fuel abilities or make magic items. Nothing. In fact the book encourages you to award XP to absent players, just so everyone always has the same amount and is playing at the same level. I’ve been doing this, and the players love it. "

Too funny. You don't even have to play your character to get XP & level! Definitively going to keep my 3.5 books.
Hmm.

The XP system - and magic item system, at least does seem more sensible...which is what I expected.

I did snicker about the XP being awarded for non-combat things because it was in AD&D (so hardly an innovation) and I've been awarding quest, RPG and such throughout the entirity of 3.5.

Wait and see, wait and see.
My main gripe is that massa doesn't quite get it. Yes simple = more player...but simple != better. His windows from DOS is a good example. I'm sorry but DOS is MUCH better then windows. And windows xp is much better then the PoS that is vista. If things still ran in DOS I would still be using it. Why? Because it's better. It lets you do more things if you know what your doing. It doesn't generate errors because it trys to do things for you.

That diagnal movement just pisses me off. Just like all the rant about THAC0 being "complex". I'm sorry but if you can't count or do subtraction, maybe you shouldn't be playing games but should study up on your math there.
Thac0 was one of the simplest things I've ever seen. It's the number you need to hit, with their AC as your modifier. What's so hard about that? Seriously...
Thac0 was one of the simplest things I've ever seen. It's the number you need to hit, with their AC as your modifier. What's so hard about that? Seriously...

Anyone who has not mastered positive and negative numbers would have trouble with it. So, let's say 2nd grade and below. (7 years and younger)
I liked that review, finally something non-gloomy that I can mostly agree with.
From Everquest to the World of Warcraft (and the many other imitators in between and after) comes the notion of perfect balance – the idea that every class, every character, every role in the party, has something to do and never, ever, has to sit on the sidelines.

And taking a tip from WoW, there are even QUEST REWARDS now.

Once again, this reinforces my belief that a large part WotC's reasoning behind 4th edition was to try to attract the large MMORPG crowd to D&D. I'll give it a year or so for everything to come out in the wash and then make my decision.
Gotta say, I was leaning towards the playing but never running 4E if it came down to necessity, but now I am completely turned off.

If I want to play controllers, tanks, buffers and nukers I'll go play a real MMO, where I can "drop a back rank controller" all day long.

And I continue to be blown away by what people are calling "revolutionary" rules adjustments; like story and role-playing rewards (3E dropped them as explicit rules, but they existed in AD&D beforehand).

"Strength check versus reflex" - You needed a RULE to figure that out? OMFG.

Suddenly, 4E created monsters who could use tactics? You needed 4E to tell you that ranged sits behind infantry and is flanked by cavalry! Basic military tactics there.

"And taking a tip from WoW, there are even QUEST REWARDS now. The DMG even includes suggestions on how PC’s can instigate their own quests."
Wow ... apparently players are stupid and needed 4E to give them rules defining their ability to be spontaneous. Yet another MMO reference, yay.

"One of the things the rules stress in the DMG is to get used to saying “YES” to players." Stupid DMs - here we fix your lack of creativity for you - with a rule.

It took new rules to tell me to count diagonal as 5' ?? We were doing that in my group already for years. Racial abilities? Play Midnight or Dawnforge.

"Race in 3.X was all about what it did for you at 1st level and what it did to your stats." Umm ... ok, I guess maybe to the power-gaming meta-gamer; but I always chose a race based on what I thought would be cool at the time.

People sitting around the table doing nothing, and with nothing to do, is a DM problem, not a rules problem and has been in everything from GURPS, to Hackmaster to Palladium to 1/2/3.x D&D - yet 4E claims to fix that too - with a rule.

But what bothers me the most is the rhetoric about Perfect Balance. I've been playing MMOs since they were MUDs, and not one of them has ever achieved the goal that WoTC is describing ... and in the end I gotta ask; does it really even matter? For 20+ years we've been playing ***** low level wizards because we know at higher levels they can eradicate entire villages. We played fighters because we knew at higher levels we could stand toe to toe with fantasy's most lethal creatures. And once again the rules are insinuating that if you want "Epic" gaming you somehow have to have stratospheric levels - Ya, because Frodo and Sam were at least level 25 for their adventure.

I think I'll be skipping this one for my D&D; and sticking with my Lord of the Rings Online for my MMO.
i haven't played face to face in years (5+) and i only recently got back in with a new group. we have just started (early February) and we are having a blast. the players i am adventuring with are a bit picky about their characters and we don't have a fighter (makes life a little difficult) but we are still smashing the good old dungeon apart. while all my fellow party members are focusing on their 1st and 2nd level characters while i am looking into the future at my prestige class. 4E has removed this and it will be interesting to see how it pans out. i quite liked the idea of getting a prestige class at lvl 5 (5 is about the time when u could complete most of the pre requisites). i dont like the idea of having to be the plain old fighter or rogue for a full 10 levels (i only ever had 1 character reach 10 and he died 2 days later). i think they are making a mistake to restrict characters so much. how many people reach lvl 10? how many people focus on the post 10 game? i would think not many.

still cant really decide until 4E comes out and it should be interesting to see this new system
"No one ever has to sit on the sidelines again."

I call bull on that. If the game allows full freedom to make whatever you want, then almost by definition there will be times when a character just has to sit back and let somebody else have the spotlight.

A frothing at the mouth battle raging barbarian is *NOT* going to be able to sit at the big boy's table when it comes to negotiations. The fighter in full plate with no ranks in stealth skills (assuming there are even stealth skills in 4e) are not going to be slinking past the sleeping guards.

There will always be times that *ANY* character is just going to have to sit something out, because they just plain aren't capable of contributing in a meaningful fashion. The wizard isn't going to be much help in an arm wrestling contest, and the fighter isn't going to be much help in an arcane trivia contest.

Thats just the nature of character specialization.
Either this just plain isn't true, or the system specifically prevents you from specializing in an area. There simply isn't a middle ground to that, IMO. When a task comes up that some characters are good at, and others aren't, then the others should bow out and let the experts have their moment in the spotlight.
Too funny. You don't even have to play your character to get XP & level! Definitively going to keep my 3.5 books.

Well it´s a good thing you will not buy the fourth edition, since you missed the whole point of how XP will work.
I'm sorry, this wasn't a review. The entire thing was pure glowing admiration, besides some vague "epic levels are weird" comments. Is 4E really better than 3.5 in EVERY way? C'mon, different systems are going to have their strengths and weaknesses.
As pointed out, many of the innovations mentioned were things any DM worth their salt has been doing for decades.
I realize that D&D feels extremely threatened from MMO's, but it seems downright silly to me to respond to it by making D&D into a table top version of an MMO. This is a road to disaster since computers will do this stuff better and faster every year. Why have a table top game when its essentially the same thing available on a computer. It seems Wizards ought to have focused on what differentiates them from MMO's not what they have in common.
I'll reserve final judgment till I see the books, but I am pessimistic.
My two cents.
Okay, part 3 is up now, just read it.
In fairness the reviewer does outline some possible negatives with the system. It's important to note many of the things he considers small problems could be considered huge for many of us.
Anyways, hoping for the best.
Once again, this reinforces my belief that a large part WotC's reasoning behind 4th edition was to try to attract the large MMORPG crowd to D&D. I'll give it a year or so for everything to come out in the wash and then make my decision.

You never gave your player's rewards for completing something? Like...I dunno, gold?

"Kill those ogres for me, I'll give you gold." Is a quest with the reward.

"There's a dungeon outside of town, it's got phat lewtz." Wow another reward for killing everything inside it.

Rewards have been around for longer than 4e.
I have to admit I am a bit astonished at the amount of denial shown by many posts here. Is it so hard to believe that 4E might actually BE better than the 3E rules in most regards? Ever heard about Occam's razor?

I'm not too fond of this review, either, because I prefer them to be a bit less 'emotional'. But if there's one thing the review clearly shows it's the excitement of its author. I doubt that it's completely unfounded.

I'm also somewhat amused by all those anecdotes along the lines of 'why, our group's been playing like this for ages!'. Well, good for you! And even better for everyone who hasn't, because now, if it's spelled out in the rules, everyone has the chance to benefit and not just those groups with 'DMs worth their salt'.

Don't you think it's a good thing if reading the 4E books makes people better DMs? Or are you suffering from some kind of jealous elitism because you don't want other players to have as good a playing experience as you seem to have enjoyed already?

For me the major selling point of 4E is the promise of less work for the DM. I've been DMing 3E for a couple of years now and if my players are to believed I am not doing a bad job of it. But I doubt that many players appreciate the vast amount of work it takes to prepare for those fun sessions, especially in the higher levels.
Anything that lessens this burden is extremely welcome.

I also look forward to combats that lasts more than 2 or 3 rounds without taking more (real) time than they did in 3E.
personaly I'm going to wait and see what it's like when it comes. the problem I have is now that 4e is on it's way there'll be little or no new material for 3e/3.5e, or 4e stuff will not be compatible enough forcing people to upgrade to the new rules. though I don't see that happening as any creative DM can upgrade 1e basic adventures to 3e rules with little fuss (change a few stats here, adjust item names there)

if i do decide to buy the 4e books then I'll do like I always do. take what I think is good from it and mix it with 3.5. and if 4e is better then I'll still add elements from 3.5e, though I don't see much point in a major change of the rules as the current rules do their job well enough (and where they don't it's possible to edit them as a DM) the only thing I fear is they'll make it too simple. granted simple is great for beginners (first time I played 1e basic I never had a problem as everything was stated clearly but when it came to MERP my head exploded with all the manuver tables, fumble tables and critical strikes).
that's the main problem I see. if they make it too simple they risk alienating the older players not to mention the die hard role players if the classes become less specialised (kind of like 1e basic dwarf and fighter. basically the same class with the dwarf having a few bonuses). don't get me wrong I like the occasional jack of all trades class which can fill in the ranks but if all classes are designed as such then what's the point in having diffrent classes instead I feel that aditional specialised classes with a few general all round classes thrown in would be better (basically what we already have).

but bottom line is we just have to wait and see. and if it is too simple we always still have 3.5 to fall back on
Well it´s a good thing you will not buy the fourth edition, since you missed the whole point of how XP will work.

So you don't get XP if you don't play? Could of sworn that's what was said.
I have to admit I am a bit astonished at the amount of denial shown by many posts here. Is it so hard to believe that 4E might actually BE better than the 3E rules in most regards? Ever heard about Occam's razor?

Good game; yes - Better game, that's debatable since it's all a matter of opinion.

I'm also somewhat amused by all those anecdotes along the lines of 'why, our group's been playing like this for ages!'. Well, good for you! And even better for everyone who hasn't, because now, if it's spelled out in the rules, everyone has the chance to benefit and not just those groups with 'DMs worth their salt'.

Since I'm the only one to have used anecdotes, I'll bite. My problem with the information as presented in the review is specifically as you say "now it's spelled out in the rules".

Or more specifically the anecdote about the player kicking a table out from under another individual. The reviewer presented it as though it would have somehow been an insurmountable ruling challenge to address had it not been for 4E.

Maybe its a generational thing, I dunno, but I'm constantly feeling like a large portion of the 3.x players are playing with the "Invisible Wall" effect present in so many Video Games, if something isn't specifically addressed in the rules. The reviewers anecdote just reaffirms this for me, and becomes particularly contentious when one of his players is a designer whom I would have expected enough creativity from to know that the 'solution' was just as easily addressable in 3.x

What used to be a game of "this is how we do it" for the last 20+ years, has slowly turned into "you can't do that because it's not in the rules".

Don't you think it's a good thing if reading the 4E books makes people better DMs? Or are you suffering from some kind of jealous elitism because you don't want other players to have as good a playing experience as you seem to have enjoyed already?

Two parts to this for me.
1) I don't believe 4E is going to make people better DMs, any more than its going to make some people better players. There are systems far more intuitive, fast, and flexible than D&D in any edition and they don't make DMs any better either. This is spoon fed bull.
2) My solution to players who can't seem to find a decent play experience is to suggest that maybe they should look elsewhere -different game or group whatever works.

For me the major selling point of 4E is the promise of less work for the DM. I've been DMing 3E for a couple of years now and if my players are to believed I am not doing a bad job of it. But I doubt that many players appreciate the vast amount of work it takes to prepare for those fun sessions, especially in the higher levels.

Congratulations, I sincerely applaud you for that - because I know how much work it takes.

I've been DM'ing since AD&D, and if there's one thing that TSR and WoTC to follow up always promised was easier work on the DM - and once again, you know what? That's never been true, in any game. DM'ing in every system is a difficult, time consuming, and sometimes thankless job.

What bother's me is that 4E is being presented as though the "rules" will make it easier for you to be creative, or more spontaneous. I can't be the only person to see the irony in this? Once again, maybe its just me, but I never knew so many players required every last thing to be spelled out for them in such minute detail that creating fun and exciting adventures was actually a bullet point list and a 'do this here' schedule, and if the rules didn't stipulate that you can do something it automatically defaulted to 'you can't'.
(Before leaning on me for that one, recall the reviewer did specifically say the rules re-inforce the DM saying 'yes'. Every resource on roleplaying has enforced this, but now suddenly the 4E manual says it, so only now is it gospel?)

EDIT: Also, I think alot of this "rules indifference" you're sensing from some of the older school crowd is specifically because some rules were pulled in 3E because they didn't streamline the game; ie. quest and story rewards, etc. and WoTC is using that player generation gap to sell 'revolutionary rules' to players who never knew they were actually there before. For some of us, alot of this is history repeating itself and alot of "well we've always been doing that" is because it was in the rules before but if you're only exposure to D&D as a game is 3.x then you'd never know that.

Am I generalizing? sure - but at least when they were presenting 3.x to the 2E community they presented hard, cold facts about how the rules were better and faster. THAC0 even had its own article about the speed of calculations in combat to demonstrate how much faster 3E was.

4E still hasn't presented those facts, just a lot of emotional rhetoric and 'trust us'. And this reviewer in my opinion didn't help the cause.
So you don't get XP if you don't play? Could of sworn that's what was said.

Ok good, I knew I read that same thing - figure both of us can't be crazy.
Am I generalizing? sure - but at least when they were presenting 3.x to the 2E community they presented hard, cold facts about how the rules were better and faster. THAC0 even had its own article about the speed of calculations in combat to demonstrate how much faster 3E was.

And now, years later, I compare the amount of time it takes to go through a random encounter from 3rd to 2nd, and 3rd actually takes loads more time - to the point where you don't put very many "random" encounters in 3/3.5 adventures. I used to be able to have several random encounters per session without unduly distracting PCs or consuming too much of a four hour session.

For all the things improved in 3/3.5, streamlining the amount of time spent on combat was not one of them - because suddenly, a lot of bells and whistles were no longer optional.

Some of us may remember when the process of creating an item was itself adventurous and accordingly gave XP, if anything. Spending XP to create things was something that never made sense to me.

I recognize other older edition elements: "Every monster level has an XP total and there’s a simple chart that tells you what XP an encounter of a party size of X level equals." Challenge ratings were introduced in 3rd; prior to that, monsters were worth an amount of XP based strictly on "equivalent hit dice," or level, in other words.

Of course, there were a few funny things in the details of that table, but it was much simpler to sort out than challenge ratings.
The notorious tjhairball of legend and lore.
And now, years later, I compare the amount of time it takes to go through a random encounter from 3rd to 2nd, and 3rd actually takes loads more time - to the point where you don't put very many "random" encounters in 3/3.5 adventures. I used to be able to have several random encounters per session without unduly distracting PCs or consuming too much of a four hour session.

For all the things improved in 3/3.5, streamlining the amount of time spent on combat was not one of them - because suddenly, a lot of bells and whistles were no longer optional.

Some of us may remember when the process of creating an item was itself adventurous and accordingly gave XP, if anything. Spending XP to create things was something that never made sense to me.

I recognize other older edition elements: "Every monster level has an XP total and there’s a simple chart that tells you what XP an encounter of a party size of X level equals." Challenge ratings were introduced in 3rd; prior to that, monsters were worth an amount of XP based strictly on "equivalent hit dice," or level, in other words.

Of course, there were a few funny things in the details of that table, but it was much simpler to sort out than challenge ratings.

And I guess that's what I'm trying to say unsuccesfully - for all the promises of 4E - don't swear by them until they've had the litmus test of years of actual play; AKA: no plan survives contact with the enemy.

Just because some of us are taking a "show me" instead of "tell me" attitude with 4E doesn't mean we're a bunch of grognard jerks who can't see the forest through the trees; we just refuse to believe that 4E is somehow going to fix everything while breaking nothing, and are more than a little humored by the fact that many of those fixes are from previous editions when they were supposedly "broken".
Not exactly much of a review.

Basically what I got was, oh wow it is so good, by the by you might not like it because of this idea over here but then your probably in the minority and why are you playing that style anyway. Add in small gripe over my figures wont match any more because of what the rules say but its really cool, looooook it has red racing stripes...it makes it go faster.

(And yes that was vastly oversimplified)

With 25+ years worth of gaming under my belt, the review made me cringe. As did some of the responses but then I'm a fly-by-the-seat-of-my-pants gamer (Absolute nightmare for my fellow players at times, especially when we should be stealthy ... or diplomatic) and when I run a game I have never found it a problem. If it slows the game, just run with it and sort out the problems later on, so long as everyone is having fun.

Till the books come out, I reserve my judgement until I have read through them and/or heard from the peanut gallery I hang out with (Gamers who enjoy breaking any and every game they come in contact with just because someone said it can't be done...some of whom have played homebrewed epic lvl games (levels 1,000 upwards...levels 21-30 are just silly? Try hearing friends talk about their thousand level warrior fighter mage and suddenly 21-30 are just tame))

Only a few more months to go.
Good game; yes - Better game, that's debatable since it's all a matter of opinion.

I concede that point. It's true that it looks like the 4E rules will cater to a certain style of play that may not be for everyone who's enjoyed playing (A)D&D in the past.

E.g. since the survivability of level 1 characters is greatly increased, those preferring a 'gritty' playing style won't consider that particular change to be for the better. If you are like me and had everyone start at level 3 anyway to skip those problematic levels (an idea I picked up from the 2E Darksun setting, btw.) you'll embrace this change.

4E still hasn't presented those facts, just a lot of emotional rhetoric and 'trust us'. And this reviewer in my opinion didn't help the cause.

Well, as I already said, I, too, prefer reviews that are less 'emotional'. And while I reserve final judgement until I've read the 4E rule books, what I've seen so far looks very promising.

And we've seen a lot already: After DDXP we've actually got everything that is required to create a short demo session: We've got the basic rules, sample characters and monsters.

Over at ENWorld lots of additional information has been extracted from the excerpts that were shown. I assume it's no different on the Gleemax 4E forums (which I currently avoid). So, there isn't actually that much more they need to show us. We've already left the inital stage of 'trust us' behind.
As another old gamer and DM, I'm taking the wait and see approach. Honestly I've been disappointed in the editing of the newer books, though I love the ideas.

I remember when the G in DMG stood for 'Guide' and you didn't need to go thru a ton of books to make a ruling or simply to understand your options. Or buy yet another compendium to catch up on the latest 'approved' ruling/options. Too much accounting, taking away from the fun.

Our groups looks for content over quantity. It was there before. Maybe it will be again.
E.g. since the survivability of level 1 characters is greatly increased, those preferring a 'gritty' playing style won't consider that particular change to be for the better. If you are like me and had everyone start at level 3 anyway to skip those problematic levels (an idea I picked up from the 2E Darksun setting, btw.) you'll embrace this change.

That lack of survivability you mention is one of the things my players enjoy; we're firmly ensconced in games the likes of Midnight and The Wilderlands of High Fantasy where there is most definitely a more deadly/gritty feel to the environment. My players seem to like the challenge of those environments, and last session one of my players (crazy, I know) even suggested using critical hit tables for my d20 Modern Expedition to Castle Ravenloft mini-campaign they're in!

So needless to say, 4E's front loaded power boost eliminates a core "Feel" of D&D for my group.

Over at ENWorld lots of additional information has been extracted from the excerpts that were shown. I assume it's no different on the Gleemax 4E forums (which I currently avoid). So, there isn't actually that much more they need to show us. We've already left the inital stage of 'trust us' behind.

True, unfortunately my post was made prior to the major onslaught of playtest information available to us from the various sites, and now that its out I still stand by what I said earlier - I think it will be a good game, but it won't be where I go for D&D.

On the boards I've seen plenty of positive for the new rules, and plenty of negative ... but, what I've seen far more of is a lot of "meh". "We'll house rule it" "We'll shoehorn it" "we'll run a combo 3.x/4E game" "Interesting but not revolutionary" "Combat takes just as long" ... etc

Now, with Arcanis effectively killing its D&D line, and fan favorites like Paizo unsure if they can even get 4E products out the door because of GSL delays, I think I'll wait to invest in a later edition that doesn't have so much vitriol behind it.
Well it´s a good thing you will not buy the fourth edition, since you missed the whole point of how XP will work.

You around Nobunaga? I'm waiting for you to inform me.
Over at ENWorld lots of additional information has been extracted from the excerpts that were shown. I assume it's no different on the Gleemax 4E forums (which I currently avoid). So, there isn't actually that much more they need to show us. We've already left the inital stage of 'trust us' behind.

I can remember when a friend of mine downloaded what was apparently a leaked beta version of 3rd edition before its official release.

There were fairly substantial changes made in between that version and the final release. Now, granted, these have been official "early versions," but don't rule out substantial changes until the first printing is finalized. I would be amazed if more than 90% of the total "early" material proves to be accurate.
The notorious tjhairball of legend and lore.
I think we all need to keep in mind that this "review" is one man's opinion. No one is going to force anyone to convert to 4e. Quite simply, everyone is allowed his or her own opinion. If you don't want to convert, don't. If you don't like it, by all means, tell us why. Why do people feel the need to attack everyone else just because their opinions differ? Can't we all just agree to disagree?
One thought that occurs is that DMing takes a lot of work. And therefore, from an advertising perspective, claiming that 4E will reduce that amount of work is a good way to get DM's to be interested in it. And in the end, the DM is really who they need to target- if the DM says he's not switching then wizards doesn't make money, cause his players won't buy the books.

I'm not saying that the new edition won't reduce the amount of work. Just that any claim made by a company whose primary purpose is making money (granted in the long term that is done by making quality products) with a grain of salt.
Seriously this is how it comes down.

People who dont want to go to 4th Edition there is a solution: DONT

Yet if you still have to prove you grew balls and try to bash a game you havent even played yet go back to your mothers teat where your opinion is more appreciated.

Everyone is crying saying "wah wah wah, my 3.5 rules arent compatible with 4th Edition wah wah wah", so what DONT PLAY, dont ruin the experience for those of us who actually are excited about a new project.

People are sayin "Oh just another MMO", well I can say that about all you WoW players because before WoW there was Dark Age of Camelot and Everquest. I could easily bash WoW and say O just another MMO but I dont because once again a great mind has made up another game that was succesful.

I dont even complain that my FFXI character donsnt work in WoW I deal with it an move on, why? Because it is a new experience.
I dont intend to put anyone down, Im just sick of finding degrading critisizm instead of CONTRUCTIVE critisizm. Im willing to put my account on the line for a game that I love so much yet everyone is bashing it. I cant even come on the boards without hearing f*ck 4thE.

Once again I apologize to anyone I have offended for that was not my intention, it was merely to educate these 2nd grade debates.

So please if you dont have much faith in 4E, dont b*tch about it and please continue playing 3.5, the more power to you.
Seriously this is how it comes down.

People who dont want to go to 4th Edition there is a solution: DONT

Yet if you still have to prove you grew balls and try to bash a game you havent even played yet go back to your mothers teat where your opinion is more appreciated.

Everyone is crying saying "wah wah wah, my 3.5 rules arent compatible with 4th Edition wah wah wah", so what DONT PLAY, dont ruin the experience for those of us who actually are excited about a new project.

People are sayin "Oh just another MMO", well I can say that about all you WoW players because before WoW there was Dark Age of Camelot and Everquest. I could easily bash WoW and say O just another MMO but I dont because once again a great mind has made up another game that was succesful.

I dont even complain that my FFXI character donsnt work in WoW I deal with it an move on, why? Because it is a new experience.
I dont intend to put anyone down, Im just sick of finding degrading critisizm instead of CONTRUCTIVE critisizm. Im willing to put my account on the line for a game that I love so much yet everyone is bashing it. I cant even come on the boards without hearing f*ck 4thE.

Once again I apologize to anyone I have offended for that was not my intention, it was merely to educate these 2nd grade debates.

So please if you dont have much faith in 4E, dont b*tch about it and please continue playing 3.5, the more power to you.

I hear what you're saying. There is indeed a lot of emotion involved, on both sides of the discussion. As fruitless as some arguements can be, I take heart in the that they demonstrate the level of passion we gamers have for our hobby. When we have an opinion, we typically lay it out there for all to see, occassionally not being very careful with our choice of words.

When I first read the above, my own emotional mind took it to mean something that is surely not intended. Here is how my initial reading would summarize it: "If you don't want to switch, fine, just keep on playing the old 3.5. Now shut up and go away."

While I'm sure you don't intend to convey a message like this, I expect many to take it this way.
Seriously this is how it comes down.

<-- Bunch of opinion -->

So please if you dont have much faith in 4E, dont b*tch about it and please continue playing 3.5, the more power to you.

So what you're saying is; "Everyone else's opinion sucks, except for your yours" a.k.a ; You think your sh*t don't stink.

For someone such as yourself, I highly recommend How to Win Friends and Influence People by Dale Carnegie.

As for myself I highly appreciate that there is passionate debate on both sides of the fence since I can likely theorize accurately that it is the same passionate debate in the 3.x era that resulted in your 4E to begin with.

If we were all sheep no one would have complained, then nothing would have changed, and you wouldn't have 4E to look forward to.
So what you're saying is; "Everyone else's opinion sucks, except for your yours" a.k.a ; You think your sh*t don't stink.

For someone such as yourself, I highly recommend How to Win Friends and Influence People by Dale Carnegie.

As for myself I highly appreciate that there is passionate debate on both sides of the fence since I can likely theorize accurately that it is the same passionate debate in the 3.x era that resulted in your 4E to begin with.

If we were all sheep no one would have complained, then nothing would have changed, and you wouldn't have 4E to look forward to.

I definitly DO NOT think everyone elses opinions suck. I come to the boards to discus issue with fellow gamers and appreciate their input but when it comes to that I rarely come here anymore because everyone is talking to negitivly. Everyone should be uniting for we share a common hobby, not splitting ourselves into 2 diffrent factions (the 3.5ers and 4Eers). I come to discuss DnD in general with fellow gamers, not which Edition is better. Each Edition had its moments, 1st was the edition that got everyone at a table to have some fun, 2nd continued to expand the rules to a degree that DMs didnt have to figure out if you were allowed to do a certain action. 3rd Edition brough out the best of 1st and 2nd and now we come to 4th which truly allows players to be the heroic characters you see in Lord of the Rings and such. I never hear anything positive about 4th E (which I am peronsally excited to see what 4E can do), only the negetive. People complaining that its a MMO on pen and paper or the rules dont make sense or that 3.5 is not compatible. Everyone realizes these facts, there is no reason to repeat ones self over and over and over and over again. All anyone is doing by bashing 4.0 is making people such as my self leave the boards for a month or so to see if things have calmed down. If you truly have a concern e-mail Wizards about for they are truly the only ones who can do anything about it.

This is NO debate believe me for I have been to a few. This is one group of people who are just plain ol ****** off because a private company decides to create a new product which isnt compatible with the other products the company created. No one is saying you cant play 3.5 anymore, Wizards is just saying "we are moving with the times". Sure maybe you wont get any more 1st party publisher materials but there are plenty of 3rd party publishers who will cash in on all the 3.5 fans.

People are only compaining because Wizards switched to 4.0 not because Wizards wasnt making it.

Everyone has to move on; if you dont want to then play 3.5, bit*hing is not going to make Wizards listen to unless you contact them directly about your conerns, if they dont do anything then they dont care simpley put.

It is very simple, some people play WoW, some Lord of the Rings: SoA just as some people play 3.5 and some people play 4.0. Hell I even have friends who still play 2nd because they think 3.5 is to complicated. I come here as gamer to have civilized conversations with gamers not rants.

By the way I try not to influence people merely educate. Influence implies screwing with someones FREE-WILL which everyone deserves.
I hear what you're saying. There is indeed a lot of emotion involved, on both sides of the discussion. As fruitless as some arguements can be, I take heart in the that they demonstrate the level of passion we gamers have for our hobby. When we have an opinion, we typically lay it out there for all to see, occassionally not being very careful with our choice of words.

When I first read the above, my own emotional mind took it to mean something that is surely not intended. Here is how my initial reading would summarize it: "If you don't want to switch, fine, just keep on playing the old 3.5. Now shut up and go away."

While I'm sure you don't intend to convey a message like this, I expect many to take it this way.

I am just fed up about how 4E sucks. I respect everyone has an opinion but when that opinion ruins MY experience then it gets personal. Essentially ALL I am saying is "You dont like 4.0 do not play 4.0. You like 3.5 you can keep playing 3.5, no one is MAKING you switch over". This is not a "passion", this is one group of people ****** off because they wont get a new book every month. IF you dont like it, move with the times, stop being childish and pick up PHB4.0. If you think 3.5 suits your needs so be it, dont rant and bash a game that I happen to have intrest in.
Seeing how angry people get at just the thought of changing things shows us all how much the game means to everyone. I just have a hard time seeing how offended people can get at the idea of a 4th edition, when we all know the game is going to continue evolving. I play a lot of 3.5, and tomorrow I'm driving home to my old gaming group to continue a 2nd edition adventure that has been ongoing for at least 5 years. I'm looking forward to seeing how the new rules work, and integrating them into my play style and DMing style. I know I can always go back to 3.5 or even 2nd edition if I don't like it, and I know I'm only as good as my imagination lets me be, regardless of which edition (a point that a lot of haters seem to be missing). 4E is not trying to be a MMORPG, as much as many of you want to crucify it for. I've heard so many positive reviews now that D&D Experience is over; can't we all just wait until we've tried the game out, rather than reading a review and saying "I will never touch these books, and whoever does is a sell-out!"? Try to have a positive view for a bit until you've experienced it and made a decision for yourself!
but when it comes to that I rarely come here anymore because everyone is talking to negitivly [sic].

Interesting. After having played & Dmed since the 70's and having enthusiastically purchased every new version, I stopped and asked myself why resistance on 4E?

I asked players who had been around as long and they had the same reaction after hearing/seeing data on 4E system. The conclusions were the same. This is the 1st system that changes the flavor of what D&D is, down to the basic assumptions. This is the 1st new edition that I can say is more D&D in name only.

It's not the $ for me. I have shelled out for each new Ed as soon as it hit the shelves. I've done this gladly since '78 for the new DMG. Not so for 4th Ed. It's not progressing anymore.
Interesting. After having played & Dmed since the 70's and having enthusiastically purchased every new version, I stopped and asked myself why resistance on 4E?

I asked players who had been around as long and they had the same reaction after hearing/seeing data on 4E system. The conclusions were the same. This is the 1st system that changes the flavor of what D&D is, down to the basic assumptions. This is the 1st new edition that I can say is more D&D in name only.

It's not the $ for me. I have shelled out for each new Ed as soon as it hit the shelves. I've done this gladly since '78 for the new DMG. Not so for 4th Ed. It's not progressing anymore.

I dont believe it is more D&D in name only. I believe from what I have gathered that allowed for more EPIC (not in the D&D sense but in the nature of D&D) play. There was an example earlier in the playtesting report mentioning kicking over a table and knocking 2 target prone on the floor; normally in 3.5 you just CANT do it for none of the rules CURRENTLY support such complex actions. I think 4thE gives the oppourtunity (thats all it is) to become more creative. Someone said earlier that "what it takes a rule to decide Ref vs. Str?" and actually it does, because 3.5 isnt balanced for such complex actions where 4thE is yet the rules are simplified to allow non avid DnD gamers to "get it". My girlfriend for example is always looking at me for example because she is never sure she is allowed to do something. In reality she should but the 3.5 rules dont support it and even she is very excited to hear of 4thE (she is new to the gaming hobby) and that she wont be always asking "can I do this" but rather "I AM going to do this".

I AM.

Thats what 4thE is about.
Seeing how angry people get at just the thought of changing things shows us all how much the game means to everyone. I just have a hard time seeing how offended people can get at the idea of a 4th edition, when we all know the game is going to continue evolving. I play a lot of 3.5, and tomorrow I'm driving home to my old gaming group to continue a 2nd edition adventure that has been ongoing for at least 5 years. I'm looking forward to seeing how the new rules work, and integrating them into my play style and DMing style. I know I can always go back to 3.5 or even 2nd edition if I don't like it, and I know I'm only as good as my imagination lets me be, regardless of which edition (a point that a lot of haters seem to be missing). 4E is not trying to be a MMORPG, as much as many of you want to crucify it for. I've heard so many positive reviews now that D&D Experience is over; can't we all just wait until we've tried the game out, rather than reading a review and saying "I will never touch these books, and whoever does is a sell-out!"? Try to have a positive view for a bit until you've experienced it and made a decision for yourself!

I totally agree with you. From what I have gathered from you as a person compared to the rest of the community against 4E is that YOU dont jump to conclusions. You believe change is good AND you do not allow a mere Edition change to ruin your experience. THIS is a DnD gamer.
There was an example earlier in the playtesting report mentioning kicking over a table and knocking 2 target prone on the floor; normally in 3.5 you just CANT do it for none of the rules CURRENTLY support such complex actions.

My players never have a problem trying to do what they want. They say I try to do X and I adjudicate in a couple of seconds. Been doing it since 1st Ed...
My players never have a problem trying to do what they want. They say I try to do X and I adjudicate in a couple of seconds. Been doing it since 1st Ed...

Imagine that, our group does the same thing! This is amazing; I wonder if any other groups have actually done this, or if their DM just says, "I'm sorry, there is not a rule to push a table over, we'll have to wait for some erratta, folks!"

Seriously, if your DM has problems coming up with a STR v. DEX check, he/she should seriously consider handing the reigns to someone a little more imaginitive.

I mean, how has he been coming up with adventures? Is there some rule supplement that says he needs to have a plot? Antaganists? Does anyone out there have a DM that lives in a vacuum like the one that needs the 4e DMG to point out how to interact with a table?

This is not intended to be a flame, but C'MON, people! Talk about a waste of paper!

Oh and in case my language is ambiguous, as it tends to be on the boards, I'm right there with you, Kursk.