[RPG]: 4th Edition Dungeons and Dragons Players Handbook, reviewed by Travire (4/2)

[RPGnet Reviews]

http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/14/14341.phtml

Travire's Summary:

A game with many pro's and con's. In the end it is fatally flawed by some unworkable rules and the mis-marketing of its publishers.

Go to the full review for more information.

[SarimRune]

In general, I agree with your assessment. But did you truly want to write this review, knowing fully well that you will be bashed by the 4th edition lovers. They are as bad as White Wolf lovers who defend their products no matter how poor some of them can be.

Also, and please correct me if I'm wrong, I had originally thought by virtue of the fact that your review came out now, that you had played 4th edition extensively. While I agree that you can review a game without playing it, I figured you would have given it your best and then come to the conclusions you did.

You missed, for example, the reason why some feel it's soulless. My best example is that, in previous, you could play a character who was (purposefully) not stellar in combat but aided the party in different ways. You could play a skilled based rogue, or a wizard who focused on charming or adventuring spells rather than combat spells. I feel that this is the missing component in 4th edition.

[neko ewen]

I'm sure someone is going to pick this review apart as it's factually wrong in some places (like how it sort of ignores the existence of class abilities and weapon and armor proficiencies), but there's only one thing I particularly want to quibble with:

Unfortunately what they are doing is alienating their existing market.

They may have alienated fans who are overly attached to 3.5, but by all accounts it's been selling like hotcakes and winning people over. People who haven't played in years are getting back into it, and game stores are having their play spaces packed with people playing D&D demos and RPGA games.

[Weltenbummler]

Originally Posted by SarimRune

But did you truly want to write this review, knowing fully well that you will be bashed by the 4th edition lovers. They are as bad as White Wolf lovers who defend their products no matter how poor some of them can be.

Well... that sounds a bit like self-censorship to me. Why should people need to take more care and precautions to hurt feelings when reviewing D&D than other games?

Also, I cant really relate to your White-Wolf comparison. Even the most rabid White-Wolf fans usually tend to agree that some of the products are flawed, though they like them regardless. The D&D (any edition) lovers on the other hand tend to lay the blame on people who don't like the game (i.e. they play it 'wrong', not in line with the original vision, etc..), not acknowleding the possiblities of any possible fault with the products.

Originally Posted by SarimRune

You missed, for example, the reason why some feel it's soulless. My best example is that, in previous, you could play a character who was (purposefully) not stellar in combat but aided the party in different ways. You could play a skilled based rogue, or a wizard who focused on charming or adventuring spells rather than combat spells. I feel that this is the missing component in 4th edition.

I don't think a review needs to address every possible pro- or con- of a game to be valid. If anything, I find this review a bit too long and would've prefered if the reviewer made his central arguments more succinct .

[Destriarch]

Originally Posted by neko ewen

They may have alienated fans who are overly attached to 3.5, but by all accounts it's been selling like hotcakes and winning people over.

Here's another account for you: my local gaming store reports that most fans are not being won over.

I don't deny that some people will like and some dislike the new edition, some for good reasons and some for bad. I personally don't like it because, as with previous editions, combat is lauded above all else. However the reception so far (in this country at least) has been far from universally good.

And in the end, what's wrong with liking an older game? Just because a new edition comes out doesn't mean we all have to start playing it. I don't like either for reasons of my own, but each to their own eh?

-Ash

[neko ewen]

Originally Posted by Destriarch

Here's another account for you: my local gaming store reports that most fans are not being won over.

Well, here's Joe Goodman's account, from contact with hundreds of gaming stores. I don't agree with everything he says, but that's about as close to authoritative as we're likely to see.

Originally Posted by Destriarch

And in the end, what's wrong with liking an older game?

Absolutely nothing. It's the part where people use factually wrong stuff to argue the matter that really irks me.

[Baumi]

Using half the Conclusion to compare 4E to MMO's? I think I have never seen a bigger flamebait!

[Weltenbummler]

Originally Posted by Baumi

Using half the Conclusion to compare 4E to MMO's? I think I have never seen a bigger flamebait!

Is it?

It appears to me that in no small part of the motivation of this review was to make that point, or to show that this is a valid point, in a critique of D&D 4e, likely as not because any mention of it is bound to go down in a torrent of flames of 4e lovers who either outright dismiss it or deflect it with nit-picking details on how 4e does not resemble a MMO in one aspect or another.

[walkerp]

Originally Posted by neko ewen

Absolutely nothing. It's the part where people use factually wrong stuff to argue the matter that really irks me.

Speculation about the success of 4e can not be determined to be factually right or wrong. If there were errors about the rules in the books, that's one thing, but nobody really knows how well 4e is doing. All we've got is anecdotal evidence.

[The Grey Elf]

Originally Posted by neko ewen

Well, here's Joe Goodman's account, from contact with hundreds of gaming stores. I don't agree with everything he says, but that's about as close to authoritative as we're likely to see.

Not really. While Goodman Games is a supporter of the old school movement, by signing on to the GSL and tying their ENTIRE DCC line to 4e they have a vested interest in 4e being a sales-driving juggernaut. Given the source, the report must be undeniably biased.

[EDIT]on re-reading the report, Joe also never says it's "selling like hotcakes." He says it's selling as well as it has in other non-peak years. It's hardly the same thing. "Selling like hotcakes" implies that 4e is equaling the previous edition in sales, when even Joe Goodman says it's not. There's a difference between "it's doing well," and "it's selling like mad."[/EDIT]

But to back Destriarch again, both of my local gaming stores, as well as one in upstate New York and one in Chicago, have given me reports that while 4e is selling okay, it's showing nowhere near the driving sales that 3e was--even accounting for economic conditions--and that there are far greater diminishing returns on each supplement. Likewise, there are just as many fans being alienated as there are new fans coming in.

One of my local game stores here, the owner said something to the effect of, "third edition kept me alive through some rough times. With the fourth edition sales, I don't know what's going on and I don't know what I'm going to do."

Now, are these reports truly authoritative? Not by a long shot--it's a sampling of four stores. But it serves to prove that your statement of "all reports indicate it's selling like hotcakes" is inaccurate, and that everyone's got their own anecdotal evidence.