Rate 4e!

[jdpacheco]

I don't doubt it.
My answer to AllisterH's question about "any noncampaign setting game system" remains "no".
I agree with Pinotage's general assessment. That doesn't mean it is a balck and white, yes or no issue, and I don't think Pinotage meant it as an absolute.
IMO, the simplicity design goal, among other things, resulted in a trade off of the readiness for molding and expanding. To me it looks vastly more simple. And sterile. And boring.
Are there specific exceptions here and there? Oh hell yeah, there are some bits and pieces I think are great. But as a whole? Simple, sterile, boring.

This is interesting to me because when some of the powers (and flavor texts) were revealed, people were worried that there was going *too much* pre-existing flavor and that they wouldn't be able to have their imaginations insert as much as they wanted it to. Now, people seem to be saying (I'm not saying that it's the same people) that the books are devoid of detail and that there's not enough to work with...

I, personally, have not seen the books. I have to agree, to some degree, that base setting books that are similar in level of inherent flavor to GURPS are not a "bad" thing. It leaves more up to the group to add in later, and it leaves it open for *more* expansion, not less. My guess is that I will find the books to be "simple" in the sense of "easy to resolve complex situations", but I doubt I will think it sterile or boring.

Remember, a good system should make the easy stuff easy, and the impossible stuff possible. 3.x had the tendency to make the impossible stuff possible, but the easy stuff was hard...

 

[der_kluge]

No gnomes, no half-orcs, no bards, no druids, no sorcerers, no cloud giants, no monks, no stone giants. Storm giants are now "evil".

It's just so... different. And almost unnaturally so. I mean, some of the changes I can see, but why drop gnomes and add in dragonborn? I didn't exactly see a lot of demand for dragonborn before 4e. Some of the changes seem to just make no sense, and they did them just... because.

Hell, the entire edition exists just because.

I'm left wondering what my gaming future holds. Pathfinder RPG is looking a little bit better today.

 

[BryonD]

This is interesting to me because when some of the powers (and flavor texts) were revealed, people were worried that there was going *too much* pre-existing flavor and that they wouldn't be able to have their imaginations insert as much as they wanted it to. Now, people seem to be saying (I'm not saying that it's the same people) that the books are devoid of detail and that there's not enough to work with...

To me at least, these are two completely different issues.
The game mechanics, the very way they express the world, are what I am talking about. If you renamed Fireball: Energy Blast IV [Fire], it wouldn't have any impact on that. And if you renamed Fireball: Blast of the Sacred Mountain Quail, it wouldn't have any impact on that.

It has zero to do with flavor and everything to do with mechanics.

 

[BryonD]

Remember, a good system should make the easy stuff easy, and the impossible stuff possible. 3.x had the tendency to make the impossible stuff possible, but the easy stuff was hard...

I believe that if this were an accurate assessment for the consensus of gamers as a whole, then 3.x would not have been remotely as successful as it was.

Frankly, I found that 3.x was really very easy when I wanted it to be.
And when I wanted to put more effort into it, it had the depth to let me push it as far as I ever wanted to.

 

[joethelawyer]

heck, i voted even though i havent seen it....so how accurate is this poll?

 

[Pinotage]

I agree with Pinotage's general assessment. That doesn't mean it is a balck and white, yes or no issue, and I don't think Pinotage meant it as an absolute.

No, definitely not an absolute. I do think that in time 4e will build more character, but the game mechanics as you (BryonD) have pointed out are presently very sterile. Everyting is so 'balanced' that it's like a pure white hospital room. While I don't doubt there's room to manuever, it not really asking to be changed.

Pinotage

 

[Pinotage]

To me at least, these are two completely different issues.
The game mechanics, the very way they express the world, are what I am talking about. If you renamed Fireball: Energy Blast IV [Fire], it wouldn't have any impact on that. And if you renamed Fireball: Blast of the Sacred Mountain Quail, it wouldn't have any impact on that.

It has zero to do with flavor and everything to do with mechanics.

Completely agreed.

Pinotage

 

[DaveMage]

No gnomes, no half-orcs, no bards, no druids, no sorcerers, no cloud giants, no monks, no stone giants. Storm giants are now "evil".

It's just so... different. And almost unnaturally so. I mean, some of the changes I can see, but why drop gnomes and add in dragonborn? I didn't exactly see a lot of demand for dragonborn before 4e. Some of the changes seem to just make no sense, and they did them just... because.

Hell, the entire edition exists just because.

I'm left wondering what my gaming future holds. Pathfinder RPG is looking a little bit better today.

Yep.

 

[Ander00]

It's pretty much exactly what I thought. I like the new rules in general, the aesthetics are rather hit and miss, and the editing leaves much to be desired.


cheers

 

[HeavenShallBurn]

It's exactly what I thought it would be. WoTC I am very disappointed in you.

And just to make it clear I downloaded the torrent (took about 20 minutes) and read through just to check it out. I would say I was shocked but I expected it would be that bad even if I hoped it wouldn't.