[RPG]: Dungeons & Dragons 4th Edition Player's Handbook, reviewed by Al Seeger (4/3)

http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/13/13857.phtml

Al Seeger's Summary:

Fourth Edition is not your father's D&D.

Go to the full review for more information.

[Andrew Montgomery]

First, thanks for your review!

So, in conclusion, I would like to give this advice to any old schoolers like myself picking up this product. Don't approach this as another edition of D&D; approach it like this is an entirely different game altogether.

I suspect that we are not so different in age. I started with the 1977 blue box Basic Set, and have played most editions of both D&D and AD&D since then.

But I actually liked this edition more than the 3rd. More than the 2nd as well.

To be honest, I've never played WoW or Everquest--sitting in front of a computer screen with imaginary friends doesn't do it for me--so all this about 4e being derivative, true or not, is lost on me.

But what is not lost, and in fact appreciated, is a return to simplicity. A lot about this version reminded me of classic D&D, and in my humble opinion, AD&D has hogged the stage far too long.

I don't get how lots of in-rulebook-options equals freedom. To me, taking the Fighter class and modifying it to a Barbarian, Knight, Pirate, or what-not is much more freeing than having to customize by picking options from a list. 4e has brought a bit of the old "do-it-yourself" back and I dig that.

Of course, none of this addresses your review exactly. Sorry. It's a bit stream of consciousness. But I simply feel much of the game is a return to simpler days. Yeah, the miniatures focus is irritating, but I've run a few sessions now with just a few sheets of graph paper, and it works just fine. As for the writing being "dumbed down," I agree. But then again, if simpler language can include new, younger players, I say more power to it. While your fine review said nothing to this effect--so please be clear this isn't addressed at you--I am sick to death of people raving about how the writing in the books insults their intelligence. First, young gamers new to the concept need a gentler learning curve, and second, people who rant about things being below their intellectual level often have an inflated opinion of what that is.

I am glad to see the 4th edition. As someone with a PhD, I don't feel insulted by it. And it is the first edition in almost 20 years that I am excited to run.

Thanks again for your review.

[Skywalker]

Originally Posted by Andrew Montgomery

I suspect that we are not so different in age. I started with the 1977 blue box Basic Set, and have played most editions of both D&D and AD&D since then.

But I actually liked this edition more than the 3rd. More than the 2nd as well.

To be honest, I've never played WoW or Everquest--sitting in front of a computer screen with imaginary friends doesn't do it for me--so all this about 4e being derivative, true or not, is lost on me.

But what is not lost, and in fact appreciated, is a return to simplicity. A lot about this version reminded me of classic D&D, and in my humble opinion, AD&D has hogged the stage far too long.

I don't get how lots of in-rulebook-options equals freedom. To me, taking the Fighter class and modifying it to a Barbarian, Knight, Pirate, or what-not is much more freeing than having to customize by picking options from a list. 4e has brought a bit of the old "do-it-yourself" back and I dig that.

...

I am glad to see the 4th edition. As someone with a PhD, I don't feel insulted by it. And it is the first edition in almost 20 years that I am excited to run.

FWIW I am similar to Andrew. I am a professional lawyer who started playing D&D in 1980 and have played every edition ever since.

Despite my initial skepticism, I have found that I prefer D&D4e more than 2e or 3e. 4e evokes the sense of adventure that I got from early D&D. Yes, some of the flexibility introduced by 3e has gone. However, I like how your choice of class is a defining one once more as it was in 1e and 2e.

FWIW I also have never played Everquest or WoW so those references are lost on me to.

As for your comments on 4e moving from 3e, I must say that I think that 4e feels to 3e what 2e was to 1e. 4e has retained nearly all the concepts introduced by 3e and refined them. The results looks quite different when you are used to 3e, but viewing the larger picture they are a natural evolution and very similar IMO.

[Menchi]

I think a lot of people are having trouble divorcing MMO from MMO mechanical concepts. The designers have openly admitted that they took some ideas from the design of MMO games - but because they felt that these were good evolutions for RPGs.

Not to hook in MMO players, but to take advantage of what they thought was good game design. After all, MMO's are hugely popular - so there has to be something right about the design ethic.

But there is a big difference between borrowing elements and copy/pasting. 4e is its own system and I think, like Skywalker said, it is a natural evolution based on the direction the gameline has taken since 1e.

Complexity of rules is not as desired as it used to be, now the popular RPGs tend to strike a balance between detail and fast/intiuitive mechanics.

While 4e is not without its flaws - it is a clear development on what has come before.

Conan

[Markzilla]

Ok... this is my first post on rpg.net. I had to respond to this "review". This applies not just to this review but others I have read on this site as well.


When I read your review I noticed that nowhere in it did you say you had actually PLAYED the game. While I agree that you can get good info and a sense of the game by mearly reading the book; it is by actually putting the concepts and ideas laid down in the book into action that you get a true and fair read of the game. Many times I have read a book and thought the game would be great but when it came time to play it fell flat (Etherscope). Conversly though I have been skeptical after a read through and truly enjoyed the game (cyberpunk). IMHO games should be played before they are reviewed.

Got that off my chest thanks.

[Crothian]

Originally Posted by Markzilla

When I read your review I noticed that nowhere in it did you say you had actually PLAYED the game. While I agree that you can get good info and a sense of the game by mearly reading the book; it is by actually putting the concepts and ideas laid down in the book into action that you get a true and fair read of the game. Many times I have read a book and thought the game would be great but when it came time to play it fell flat (Etherscope). Conversly though I have been skeptical after a read through and truly enjoyed the game (cyberpunk). IMHO games should be played before they are reviewed.

Luckily, books can be reviewed without being played. But most reviews do list if they were played or not. That makes it easy to read only the playtest ones if you so desire.

[Sangrolu]

Originally Posted by The Review

So, in conclusion, I would like to give this advice to any old schoolers like myself picking up this product. Don't approach this as another edition of D&D; approach it like this is an entirely different game altogether.

That was my viewpoint, too. I considered it another fantasy game like Arcana Evolved or Exalted; the game has to prove itself anew. Like those games, 4e has interesting elements, but ultimately, lacks many the identifying elements that keeps me playing D&D.

Originally Posted by Skywalker

FWIW I am similar to Andrew. I am a professional lawyer who started playing D&D in 1980 and have played every edition ever since.

Despite my initial skepticism, I have found that I prefer D&D4e more than 2e or 3e. 4e evokes the sense of adventure that I got from early D&D. Yes, some of the flexibility introduced by 3e has gone. However, I like how your choice of class is a defining one once more as it was in 1e and 2e.

In contrast, I have been playing D&D about that long. I've embraced each new edition as it came along. 4e will be the first exception to that.

[Menchi]

Originally Posted by Sangrolu

That was my viewpoint, too. I considered it another fantasy game like Arcana Evolved or Exalted; the game has to prove itself anew. Like those games, 4e has interesting elements, but ultimately, lacks many the identifying elements that keeps me playing D&D.

It doesn't need to prove itself anew anymore than 3e did. I'd be curious to know what identifying elements of D&D you consider it to be missing. It seems to me to have most of the iconic D&D elements.

In contrast, I have been playing D&D about that long. I've embraced each new edition as it came along. 4e will be the first exception to that.

But is this from playing the game? Reading it? Or just based on the opinions of others and just looking at the previews?

I ask because while I respect that it might not sound your kind of thing, claiming that it isn't D&D is a fallacy that has been tooling around a lot recently. I'm interested in how much your decision is based on informed decision and on rumour and hearsay.

Conan

[Dagor]

I have to admit that after reading this, my immediate gut reaction was "Okay, nice forum article...but, dude, where's the review?" I re-read it to make sure I hadn't skipped over anything important, and the feeling persists.

If I was a first-time visitor to this site and chanced upon this 'review' as one of the first things I happened to read (which wouldn't be unlikely since as of this writing the link to it is right on the title page), it would tell me a fair bit about the author's personal disappointment with D&D 4th edition...but preciously little about what the game is actually like, even if I had experience with previous editions (not necessarily a given). Which to me seems to be kind of defeating the purpose of the whole exercise...

[J.J.]

Originally Posted by Menchi

After all, MMO's are hugely popular - so there has to be something right about the design ethic.

Not really.

MMOs don't require you to find a place to play. "Not at my place, the wife's sister is visiting."

MMO's don't require all your buddies having the same schedule. "Sorry, I work late on Thursday, I can't make it."

MMO's don't require a GM. MMO's don't require prep time. For the most part, MMO's just serve up everything. You turn it on and go. The cool pictures are there, the sound effects, the evil wizard giving a speech doesn't sound just like your dorky friend doing his Darth Vader impression.

While "design ethic" can have an impact on which MMO someone chooses, it is not why someone chooses MMOs over tabletop, in my opinion.

YMMV.

claiming that it isn't D&D is a fallacy

That's right. And at risk of being banned - You people should have embraced New Coke, Highlander II, the second Darrin, and The Phantom Menace! To claim they were not Coke, Highlander, the true Darrin of Bewitched, and Star Wars is a fallacy. :P

*hides*