Community

I consider myself extremely fortunate that I was able to attend the D&D Experience, which I believe was the first hands-on unveiling of the 4E rules. My gaming group and I went there en masse, and for 6 bucks got to experience a 5 hour block of gaming and gain insight into some (admittedly few and limited) new rules.

Now, I went into it wanting to love 4E, and as a DM, hoping to glean as much information as possible. My players weren't as welcoming or enthusiastic as I, but curious nonetheless. By the end, to a person, they were sold.

What I'm wondering is why some on this board seem to be so staunchly anti-4E. Before the convention, before any great deal of information came out, there were those opposed to a 4th edition, for reasons which I'm certain were entirely valid to them. But this was without knowing much, if anything, about the new system.

Now people are criticizing the rules which have come out of the convention, either by release or extrapolation. And as said, the rules supplied were few, and left the impression that there were more to them than what we were given. It seemed they were playing their cards close to the vest, so to speak. For whatever reason.

Within the gaming community, only a fortunate minority were able to attend the D&D Experience. And there hasn't been nearly enough of the rules released to support the agrument of "dumbing down" the system or ruining the mechanics by changing them.

For those who fall into the anti-4E camp, please explain to me, preferably cooly and rationally, why you're opposed to the evolution of the game. Particularly if you haven't played the new system, and all you know of the rules is what little is out there. I'm not understanding the vitriol or the line-in-the-sand mentality. Thanx.

TragicMagic wrote:

For those who fall into the anti-4E camp, please explain to me, preferably cooly and rationally, why you're opposed to the evolution of the game. Particularly if you haven't played the new system, and all you know of the rules is what little is out there. I'm not understanding the vitriol or the line-in-the-sand mentality. Thanx.

A quick answer. When most of the rules which have been published are bad, how high is the chance that the rest of the rules are good?

Personally I am anti-43 because it looks like 4E doesn't want me as a player because it throws out nearly any form of a believable game world in favor for action movie stunts. Good for those who want to constantly do crazy over the top stunts, bad for those who want a believable game world and I am in the latter group.
Sure, 3E was not perfect, but it still tried.

A second, minor point is that WotC apparently has a very low opinion of their gamers. I don't consider myself exceptionally smart, but I must be because I understand the grapple and trip rules.

My gaming group has never had to use minies. 4E seems to make that impossible now.

Exactly how long is this horse corpse gonna get beaten?

You don't need minis.
You need a way to keep track of where people are.
Graph paper, pencil and eraser will do.
Heck regular notebook paper will do it you have either a steady hand or a ruler.

grid out a cork board and used thumbtacks.
print out maps and use fold up paper minis.

What ever.

If you played 3e, what ever you did to keep track of where everybody is will work just fine with 4e.

If you didn't play 3e, the merest amount of creativity can solve the problem without spending one red cent on a mini or battlemat.

Derren S. wrote:

Personally I am anti-43 because it looks like 4E doesn't want me as a player because it throws out nearly any form of a believable game world in favor for action movie stunts.

Hyperbole like that is really very unconvincing, you know. Try to put forth your points in something like a logical, believable form if you wish to be taken seriously.