![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
D&D 4.0 - Brilliance from Sean Reynolds
Jan. 19th, 2009 10:36 amI've copied this from the comments in ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
seankreynolds's entry on 4E and the "revised" archons, simply because it's so utterly brilliant, and because it completely expresses the way I feel about the apparent design decisions in 4E. It's down a ways in the comments, but I encourage you to read all of the comments.
I don't dislike 4E - but I have a lot of cognitive dissonance every time I play. I have to deliberately sit myself down and remind myself that this is a whole new game, and not D&D as I've known it for 30+ years. I still get that jarring "step off an unexpected curb" sensation dozens of time per game, as core concepts kinda leap up and moon me with either their radical changes or complete disappearance.
The game has intrinsic value and playability, but the only reason it's called D&D is because that IP is owned by the people who put out the game. Any other similarities appear to be entirely coincidental.
Sean says:
seankreynolds's entry on 4E and the "revised" archons, simply because it's so utterly brilliant, and because it completely expresses the way I feel about the apparent design decisions in 4E. It's down a ways in the comments, but I encourage you to read all of the comments.I don't dislike 4E - but I have a lot of cognitive dissonance every time I play. I have to deliberately sit myself down and remind myself that this is a whole new game, and not D&D as I've known it for 30+ years. I still get that jarring "step off an unexpected curb" sensation dozens of time per game, as core concepts kinda leap up and moon me with either their radical changes or complete disappearance.
The game has intrinsic value and playability, but the only reason it's called D&D is because that IP is owned by the people who put out the game. Any other similarities appear to be entirely coincidental.
Sean says:
Let's say I like muscle cars, the Chevy Camaro in particular. I've been buying a new Chevy Camaro every 10 years because I know the company, I know the machine, I like how it handles, I like the slight upgrades. Then 2008 rolls around and Chevy is trying to get me excited about the new Camaro (though they sold me one just three years ago). Except this "Camaro" "muscle car" is actually a Geo Metro that they stuck the name "Camaro" on.
A Geo Metro has very little to do with a Chevy Camaro. They're both cars, sure, but one is a muscle car, and the other is a highly fuel-efficient lightweight supermini. Heck, the Metro isn't technically a Chevrolet, it's a Suzuki.
I, as the long-term, brand-aware Camaro buyer, is pissed that they're calling this new car a Camaro. It's not a damn Camaro!
You, as the relative newcomer to the car scene, may have driven a real Camaro before or at least ridden in one, but you don't really car, you just want a car you can drive. You try out and like the new "Camaro" (i.e., Suzuki), like it, and buy it. You wanted a light, fuel-efficient small car, and it's perfect for you.
My CDs play in my car and your car. I can even hang my fuzzy dice from your rear-view mirror. We both drive using the same general rules of the road, though my acceleration, mileage, seating capacity, and crash survivability may be different than yours.
I'm not stupid for liking the original Camaro.
You're not stupid for liking the new *choke* Camaro-Suzuki.
But Chevy is stupid for trying to call its new non-Camaro car a Camaro and expecting its existing customers to swallow that one whole. If they called the new car a Cappucino and stopped producing the old Camaros, you'd still have angry fans of the old Camaro model but you wouldn't be insulting their intelligence by insisting that the supermini was really a Camaro.
So....
I'm not stupid for liking 3e.
You're not stupid for liking 4e.
Wizards is stupid for changing so many things in D&D to fit their definition of what D&D should be, ignoring that the existing players have been playing D&D the previous way for 30 years and might not want to change that.
A Geo Metro has very little to do with a Chevy Camaro. They're both cars, sure, but one is a muscle car, and the other is a highly fuel-efficient lightweight supermini. Heck, the Metro isn't technically a Chevrolet, it's a Suzuki.
I, as the long-term, brand-aware Camaro buyer, is pissed that they're calling this new car a Camaro. It's not a damn Camaro!
You, as the relative newcomer to the car scene, may have driven a real Camaro before or at least ridden in one, but you don't really car, you just want a car you can drive. You try out and like the new "Camaro" (i.e., Suzuki), like it, and buy it. You wanted a light, fuel-efficient small car, and it's perfect for you.
My CDs play in my car and your car. I can even hang my fuzzy dice from your rear-view mirror. We both drive using the same general rules of the road, though my acceleration, mileage, seating capacity, and crash survivability may be different than yours.
I'm not stupid for liking the original Camaro.
You're not stupid for liking the new *choke* Camaro-Suzuki.
But Chevy is stupid for trying to call its new non-Camaro car a Camaro and expecting its existing customers to swallow that one whole. If they called the new car a Cappucino and stopped producing the old Camaros, you'd still have angry fans of the old Camaro model but you wouldn't be insulting their intelligence by insisting that the supermini was really a Camaro.
So....
I'm not stupid for liking 3e.
You're not stupid for liking 4e.
Wizards is stupid for changing so many things in D&D to fit their definition of what D&D should be, ignoring that the existing players have been playing D&D the previous way for 30 years and might not want to change that.
