Looking for info or reviews about the new edition of Dungeons & Dragons? Here's a bunch-
- 4th Edition: Dissociated Mechanics
- Playtesting 4th Edition
- Keep On The Shadowfell: First Impressions
- Review of H1: Keep On The Shadowfell
- 4E and New Players
- 4e by the Numbers: Part I
- 4e by the Numbers: Part II
- Spinachcat's Guide to Grokking 4e
- Review: 4e Player's Handbook
- Review: Dungeons and Dragons, 4th Edition
- The Players Handbook Review You Dont Want To Read
- OgreCave's Review of D&D 4th Edition Player's Handbook
- 4e Character Sheet Pack Review
- Fourth Edition: Reviewed
- Playing 4e: Initial Thoughts
- A GM's First Impressions of D&D 4e: Looks Like Fun
Loading ...
A few more to the list:
Fourth Edition: Reviewed, by Jonathan Drain
Playing 4e: Initial Thoughts, by Chatty DM
A GM’s First Impressions of D&D 4e: Looks Like Fun, by Martin Ralya
added to the list, thanks!
what really strikes me is how many reviews i’ve read of 4e are irrationally negative, and the only “positive” reviews simply list what’s in the books.
probably the best of the reviews is the 4th Edition: Dissociated Mechanics, which does a great job showing how bad the math is, and how poorly it is being used. that (and the poor quality of keep on the shadowfell) were the two reasons i’ve turned my back on 4e.
Yep, the analysis of 4e from The Alexandrian blog is very thorough and, I think, correct.
You have to take into account how people feel about the game. A great deal of 4E’s reception took place before the game was out.
“I don’t collect miniatures, and don’t want to start now.”
“I don’t want to learn a whole new system.”
“I enjoy third edition and see no need to change.”
“My favourite race/class isn’t in 4E.”
What you’ve got is a lot of people who need convincing that there’s any point to the new edition, and if nothing they’ve seen is going to be worth these drawbacks, they’re not necessarily going to keep on with the new edition until they come to like it.
Spinachcat’s review is spot-on, as is The Alexandrian’s. I will say this for Spinachcat’s: he wrote a very informative review, because after explaining why he liked it, it was clear I would detest it. This is my favorite line:
“You will literally switch between two genres of games. Imagine if you were playing RISUS and then combat breaks out so you grab Warhammer rulebooks, figs and battlemat with terrain to handle the fight . . . and then go back to RISUS after the fight.”
Apparently very accurate and almost the opposite of what I want in a game. (I’d rather be using RISUS for the combat and something with Warhammer-level complexity out of combat — but I realize I’m unusual. Most people would rather stick with one style of rules-thickness throughout!)
And this is my second favorite:
“3e tried hard to be a toolkit, 4e says play inside our sandbox.”
Which is, of course, why 3e was able to steal such a huge share of the market. 4e is positioning itself to be a niche player. Very interesting, and maybe it will help boost the other good RPGs which are out there!
stick with AD&A.
The game was simply “better” in MANY aspects.
AD&D – just needed some minor fixes. Anything after 2ED leads away from what the game was about. It’s no suprise what 4E would become looking at the direction 3E took. Go dig up the old books, you’ll like the game all over again.
Gygax – was not happy w/what WOTC did with his game. It should not be a suprize that you would be.
the 4e rules are not to bad once you get into all the other side books offered with it some of the classes are cool and tieflings just kick total ass but you have to like DnD to enjoy the new rules because they have gone back to the way it was in first and second edition rules i know this is dateing myself but it was more fun back then