Interesting article (review?) that I enjoyed reading: LINK.
To me, the 4E rules seem interestingly streamlined, but a bit oversimplified
in spots.
And you know what? I've heard all of this conversation recently. I've been
hanging out with PS3 owners who are mortally offended by the risk that the
Wii's success will "kill gaming". Many Wii games are simpler than the games
the experienced gamers are used to, and this is seen as a serious problem by
people who are comfortable with that complexity.
What I found is that, even as someone who's been gaming for thirty years, I
often prefer a somewhat simpler and less involved game. And I think I'm gonna
love playing 4E.
I recently read an article about "casual" gaming, which I was much impressed
by:
http://malstrom.50webs.com/birdman.html
[excerpt]
"Retards!?" says a shocked reader. "Surely you can"t say
what you mean!" Why not? When a casual gamer picks up the
standard dual shock controller, he gets confused. He doesn"t
have the patience to wade through these elaborate 3d worlds
or memorize fourteen button combinations. While the hardcore
call him "stupid", he retaliates by calling gaming "stupid".
Anytime you read "casual games" in the news, just replace
"casual" with the word "retard" and you will get how it is
truly perceived by the industry. "There is a casual gamer
boom!" should translate to "There is a retard gamer boom!".
The "EA Casual Games Division" really is translated to "EA
Retard Games Division". "Why are you calling casual gamers
retarded!?" thunders one reader. I am not. I am saying that
the hardcore industry is the one who thinks this way.
"Casual" is just a nice way of saying "dumb" in their eyes.
The reason why hardcore gamers' hearts sink when a company
says they will make the game include "casuals" is because
they know that all the edge, difficulty, and passion will
be ripped out to make a generic, easy, and soul-less game.
Is 4E as richly detailed a game as 3E? Well, no. It looks to be in many
ways a simpler game. No longer will I spend an hour choosing the thirty
spells for my wizard, while the fighter's player ... has absolutely NOTHING
to do. Spell management will be much less of an issue. A significant
complexity, which I quite enjoyed, is gone... But now we're all playing a
similar game. The fighter and I will both be making interesting choices
about which abilities to use.
The new DMG is in some ways the best. The analysis and discussion of how
to build an encounter is delicious. Yeah, I could do it -- I've been doing
it the hard way for twenty years. But other people I know didn't know how,
and nothing ever EXPLAINED it before. The monster types (solo/elite/minion)
are a big win; the monster roles (artillery, brute, etc.) are also a big win.
For that matter, the skill challenge rules are absolutely head and shoulders
above anything I've seen previously for non-combat mechanics that give some
room for interesting choices and player creativity -- *WHILE STILL ALLOWING
AN INEXPERIENCED GM TO RUN THE GAME*. Sure, a brilliant GM who has written
novels before could do this on the fly -- these rules give us a way to make it
work for everyone else, too.
If I had a group of experienced gamers, all of whom were mildly autistic like
me, we would all play 3.5 or 3.75 and love the details and special cases we're
so familiar with. If I wanna play with my roommate who gets frustrated and
upset and gives up because skill points are too complicated and the spell
preparation system is confusing and how was I supposed to know I had to pick
spells... 4E is an excellent choice.
Like the Wii, this is a bit simplified and streamlined for the benefit of
newbie players. Also like the Wii, it has a lot more depth and room
for fun and exploration than people have given it credit for, and I think it
will be good for the hobby. I think the decision to streamline and simplify
things is probably, on the whole, a very good one. The resulting complexity
and range of powers looks like it's going to be more evenly dispersed, giving
all the players a chance to think creatively and make interesting choices.
I'm no longer going to have to struggle, running a game, to find some way
to give the cleric an option other than "heal" and the fighter an option other
than "five foot step, full attack".
The ritual system, while I'm not totally sold on it, is a genuine solution to
the very real problem of adventurers getting screwed if they take spells with
no combat application, or if they don't happen to take exactly the right spell
with no combat application. I like the idea.
--
Copyright 2008, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / usenet-nos...@seebs.net
That is really an interesting spin on it my friend. My position on the whole 4th edition dust up is if it were called anything else other than D&D, it would be getting rave reviews. It seems like a well made, fast paced game. I am still waiting on my order from Amazon, although i have secured alternate means to peruse the rules. I do see some merit to the arguments about it deviating from what many may consider "D&D". But if one steps aside from that viewpoint and views 4th edition on its own merit, they may be pleasantly surprised...
Speaking as someone who loves his Wii, I can totally relate to the quotation from the OP- I simply have neither the time nor energy to get lost in a PS game when I can shoot the breeze on a Wii game. That said, I remain firmly in the PF camp right now- I simply don't want a Wii experience when I play pen and paper games- I like a bit more crunch.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
I enjoy my Wii (just got it), first console we've owned since the Atari 2600, though we both play a lot of computer games. I don't mind a challenging game, but I get a little sick of ones that feel like they're punishing me for being less than perfect. Put me down as someone who enjoys complicated and casual games.
I don't care for 4th ed, and I do like PF and 3rd ed.
I don't really think that 4E is as simple as folks make it out to be - making a high-level character involves a nightmarish amount of choices for it to be called casual. I also think it sacrifices flavor - something casual games don't have to do.
I don't really think that 4E is as simple as folks make it out to be - making a high-level character involves a nightmarish amount of choices for it to be called casual. I also think it sacrifices flavor - something casual games don't have to do.
I don't think its as simple as folks make it out to be either... but usually we are comparing 3.5 to 4E and in 3.5 its not exactly easy to make a high level character.
Especially clerics...shudder. As a DM I love the cleric in 3.5. Makes a fantastic enemy - but by the time your making one of about 13th level it takes a long time to make a decently min/maxed (read scary and nasty and will hopefully kill one of my players) one.