|
There has been a plethora of reviews all over the Internet on the latest incarnation of Dungeons & Dragons. Here's one from Zardnaar on the messageboards.
For those who have read the reviews, what is your perception of the new game? Did it reinforce already held opinions? Change them? Or a mixture of the two?
Did actual play have an impact on how you interpreted the reviews either before or after reading them? I had been following the game since the first set of unofficial rules appeared over at ENWorld. In gameplay, though, the rules played quite differently than I had expected* and which many, if not most, reviews don't cover or fully convey.
*And before you ask, no, I will not explain what I mean since that's the subject of another post :)
|
No impact, I never read any true reviews, I read a few immediate over-reactions to the fact it was being updated, but I ignored those. I also read a few things posted on the D&D website and most of what I saw I didn't like(I did like the idea of magic users never running out of spells, but that's about it). I went to my local Hastings and perused the copies two days after they were released. I found little of interest in them, other than the artwork, so I put them back on the shelf.
I don't deny that after all the resources they've released, there was little else they could do without rehashing things beyond the point of ridiculousness, but I don't know if they should have made a new edition after just eight years. Perhaps they should have considered making a new campaign setting.
There has been a plethora of reviews all over the Internet on the latest incarnation of Dungeons & Dragons. Here's one from Zardnaar on the messageboards.
For those who have read the reviews, what is your perception of the new game? Did it reinforce already held opinions? Change them? Or a mixture of the two?
Did actual play have an impact on how you interpreted the reviews either before or after reading them? I had been following the game since the first set of unofficial rules appeared over at ENWorld. In gameplay, though, the rules played quite differently than I had expected* and which many, if not most, reviews don't cover or fully convey.
*And before you ask, no, I will not explain what I mean since that's the subject of another post :)
I wrote that. I'm some kinda heretic as I like 3.5 and 4th ed. Leaning towards 4th ed ATM as I'm the DM and its alot easier to run in that regard.
That and I really like minions.
No impact, had Pathfinder not come along I would be getting all the OGL 3.5 stuff and been done with D'n'D. You have to understand where I'm coming from, I started back in the mid-80's with Robtech. Sure I heard of D'n'D but the one time I tried, the DM had all the bad sterotypes, so I never went there again. Palladium was differnt, and I loved it. By the time 3rd had come out I was ready for something new. The World of Darkness was my game line by then, but something more heroic was good for me by then. I really loved the rules, and the openesss of OGL allowed me to look at a lot of options for the rules. So I regarded 4th at best as a simply a new variations. Then no backwards news came out and I said I was done with it. I only became anti-4th when Wizards started doing everything they were doing. Pathfinder as a whole has earned my love and respect, so when the review came out it did nothing for me.
I don't hate the rules or system (its just not for me), I dislike the company and I simply don't understand why they did what they did to the fluff. If your going to make such radical changes to the game, don't mess with the fluff as much, and vice versa. Look White Wolf messed with all the fluff in regards to the WOD (and I still give them credit for having the balls to end there cash cow) but lets face it hurt the company badly. Worst part was the rules changes were that radical, and for the most part they were an improvment and backwards compatable, at lest in concept. I played the New WOD for a six months before my group kept the rules and changed the fluff back to the old world of darkness. Wizards not only didn't learn a lesson form that, the one uped it with the rules.
I have released several reviews, a first glance, a more in depth look, and a few actual play sessions at www.thetomeshow.com for what it's worth.
Honestly, I'm another of those folks that sees room for both in the industry. I'm really enjoying 4e right now, but I'm a big fan of what Paizo is doing with the Pathfinder RPG, and I intend on covering both in my podcast.
|
|
I was willing to give 4e a try. I still have yet to experience it in a campaign, so far I've just done a few combat playtests. It played differently than what I expected from reading it (expecially how long save effects last, usually 2 rounds tops).
I've read reviews, but they don't really impact my opinion. I'm on the fence. I'll play it if I have the chance, but I'm not excited to do so. I also don't feel a need to rally against it, since many people have demonstrated they have their own mind on the subject, so the collected fans aren't changing anyone's mind. At least, not in any way that's visible to me.
I'm very glad 3.5 will continue to get support from the company that made me excited to play it again.
No impact. I still wouldn't spend money on wizards products if they were the only thing in the world for sale and I'd be drowning in money.
|
No impact. I still wouldn't spend money on wizards products if they were the only thing in the world for sale and I'd be drowning in money.
Thats a bit harsh. If you had that much money you could always just buy Hasbro. ;)
As to the OP. Reviews of 4e both for and con have affected my decision not to switch. It is clear that the designers, by their own admission, were aiming for a slightly different gaming style than mine.
I'll summerize my thoughts and just say that I'm done with WOTC, made that decision when they pulled the 4th edition money grab and discontinued Dragon. The reviews I have read, my gander at the books, and the statements that WOTC as put out since tells me I made the right decision. Don't really care if the game is good or not. It could drive gaming to the highest heights ever but as far as I'm concerned WOTC doesn't deserve my money. In all honestly, if I could return my 3.5 books for a refund I would as well. There good books, its not that, its the company that put them out. I miss the early days of TSR.
Several months ago when I mentioned to my players that a 4e was on the way the response was "why?". After reading various reviews/blogs/comments and reading various articles on the new edition...I don't see us making the move. I really feel this is a big change for D&D...too big for me. I suppose 4e is a natural evolution from a company that produces D&D and the grandaddy of all card games. Combined with the need to compeat with the various MMO's smothering the gaming market...4e is probably good buisness sense. WotC is a buisness and a new edition means new money. Nothing wrong with that. And I have to assume the smart people at wizards knew this edition would split the D&D community...what other realistic outcome could there be? For the first time in all the previous editions of the game...this dosen't feel like D&D to me anymore. That's a very personal feeling which I'm sure many will disagree with. I thank the gaming gods that Paizo has seen the need to continue supporting the 3.5 community. I suppose in a convoluted way, Paizo might not have come to be without a move towards 4e;-)