The Campaign Builder's Guild

For my blog i'm doing a review upon white wolf games in general, and in order to do so i need to summarize my problems with the company itself along with what i like about it.  And i wondered if anybody shared me views on them.  here it is (EvilElitest.blogspot.com)

Not really. I actually find myself disagreeing with most of the points you make. Your claims are frequently unsubstantiated and your logic is often rather dubious. I don't have much of an opinion on White Wolf at all, but you're really not making any arguments with enough strength to get me to believe you.

Your review's efficacy is further weakened by spelling and syntax errors ("there" instead of "their," improperly used ellipses, etc.), strange and sudden lapses into a much more conversational tone (which is fine in a blog, as long as it's consistently used), and a bad habit of making a statement in one sentence and going back to undermine that statement in the following sentence. It's akin to sabotaging your own work. I think a little proofreading would help improve your work immensely.

White Wolf sell themselves primarily as being "Not D&D?" Really? I thought they sold their games based on the underlying concept of playing as mythical "monstrous" beings in a world similar to the modern one, and tackling various dark occult themes within that context. A concept which, to my knowledge, was original in RPGs when White Wolf first started publishing their stuff... Obviously you have access to some insider knowledge I'm not privy to.

NOTE: I'm not a huge fan of White Wolf, I just think you're wrong. I played in a campaign that mixed Vampire and Werewolf in the edition before the current one, and while it was one of the best gaming experiences I've had, I'm inclined to think that it was due more to the GM than the game system or setting, neither of which are entirely to my taste. Not that they're bad, though - quite the opposite. My taste just lies in other areas.

I pretty much agree with Luminous Crayon.  Disliking White Wolf is fine, but you're pretty scathing in your review without significant citation or consistency to drive your points home.  Ironically, the same spelling and grammatical errors that distract in White Wolf products are present in your criticism.  The off-site example you provide doesn't strike me as condescending or demeaning, and was probably a moderately successful marketing strategy designed to win over those players who already felt alienated by the release of 4.0e.  *shrug*

I'm going to have to agree. You're hitting the nail, just not with a hammer - White Wolf has always had issues with their material, though marketing and the rather depressing settings they produce. The WoD system and most of the S&S material they've published is damn good (and I've considered the Storytelling system to be superior to d20 for quite a while now).

Your biggest issue it seems is to fix the organization and grammatical errors that everyone else is listing. There are some fairly valid points as far as I'm concerned - especially regarding the Exalted advertising - but right now your review isn't very polished.

Quote from: EladrisThe off-site example you provide doesn't strike me as condescending or demeaning, and was probably a moderately successful marketing strategy designed to win over those players who already felt alienated by the release of 4.0e. *shrug*

Yeah, this was a pretty brilliant marketing gambit, if you ask me. 4E hate is clearly a strong force-- for example, EvilElitest, it's what got you to grudgingly admit White Wolf's quality by the end of your review. Which really amounts to another serious problem: your conclusion has nothing to do with the merits (or meritlessness) of White Wolf and its products, and everything to do with how much you dislike D&D 4E. If you're purportedly reviewing White Wolf, that's kind of a big deal.

Honestly, I've seen more arrogance and pissant-ery from D&D crowds (regardless of edition) than I have ever seen from White Wolf.

I have to agree with White Wolf that their products are not WotC because, they aren't. The story telling system is a much more interactive & communal system than D&D. This is due to the simple fact that one (or god forbid an entire group) can fall into the mindset of 'I rolled a 16, do I hit?.' That isn't to say D&D can't be communal, some of my favorite sessions have been D&D sessions but, in my experience, D&D is far too focused on combat and not Role Playing, which makes the system more prone to basic math than the Story Telling system.  

I found your blog very anti-White Wolf and very combative but, that's what blogs typically do, so c'est la vie.

I have never played white wolf's stuff so I can't really comment on the validity of what you are saying. However, I will say that their graduate your game thing has nothing to do with hate or conceit. It is simply a brilliant tactical maneuver. Because in the end you must remember that they are both companies and money is the bottom line.

Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_wagerCygnus X-1[/url] is a black hole.)

I have a fairly low opinion of White Wolf since the "Everquest-2-d20-Incident" (as I call it). I know it was Swords & Sorcery who was responsible for this mess, but I blame WW as the parent company just like I blame Hasbro for things WotC botched up.

Releasing only 50% of the (imho very good) game system, promising the rest later, then wiping the forums, delaying information, wiping the forums again, and then - over 1 year later than promised (!) - releasing the other half of the system in a half-assed eBook for full price?

No frigging way this company will ever again see money from me. :-/

Edit:

Quote from: Elemental_ElfHonestly, I've seen more arrogance and pissant-ery from D&D crowds (regardless of edition) than I have ever seen from White Wolf. [...]

Then you haven't had the pleasure to deal with some Vampire LARPers. :D

Quote from: Elemental_Elf[...] This is due to the simple fact that one (or god forbid an entire group) can fall into the mindset of 'I rolled a 16, do I hit?.' [...]

And Werewolf (especially the oWoD editions), Exalted, and Scion can't devolve into a "I rolled 7 successes, do I hit?" fest? ;)

Quote from: brainfaceI like 4e dude. Don't become the smug rpg-fan you critized earlier. :) You can dislike a system without the system being intrinsically bad.
(Seriously, I like 4e for it's simplicity, you dislike it for it's simplicity.

Ditto. I was never a big fan of any D&D system pre 4e, but I see it's mindset as being a vast improvement.

And I kind of like WW, too.

Quote from: NomadicI have never played white wolf's stuff so I can't really comment on the validity of what you are saying. However, I will say that their graduate your game thing has nothing to do with hate or conceit. It is simply a brilliant tactical maneuver. Because in the end you must remember that they are both companies and money is the bottom line.

&^%&* yes.  and differentiation is rule #1 in marketing.  What are they supposed to say, "We're smaller and worth a look, even though the game most people play is really good", or maybe that is still too confrontational?

and EE, I really applaud all the effort and time that goes into your review and in making your blog look sharp.  I disagree with much of your characterization of the game in question, however.  I think that that they actually follow Vreeg's #1 rule of game and setting design quite well, and that is,
"Make sure that the system used matches the style of game you want to play, or the setting WILL end up matching the system."

And while they do try to market themselves to a more sophisticated gamer, the insertion of curse words and a little sex and drugs (and Demon worship...??) has little or nothing to do with it. That seems a very 'outside-looking-in' view of maturity.  
[spoiler=synonyms] there are more direct terms I could have used than 'outside-looking-in view of maturity', but I avoided them on purpose.[/spoiler]
They try to market their system as a storytelling-biased roleplaying system, not merely a combat/adventuring roleplaying system.  It is the overall focus of the game, not the minutia.
While I may be once again opening myself up to deserved castigation by my generalization, most of our younger days as a player involve random combats loosely tied together, and as we continue to game and grow more sophisticated in our gaming and literary pursuits, the end-goal becomes more the story and the quality of the narrative.  

Quote from: Vreeg's BaroloThey try to market their system as a storytelling-biased roleplaying system, not merely a combat/adventuring roleplaying system.  It is the overall focus of the game, not the minutia.
While I may be once again opening myself up to deserved castigation by my generalization, most of our younger days as a player involve random combats loosely tied together, and as we continue to game and grow more sophisticated in our gaming and literary pursuits, the end-goal becomes more the story and the quality of the narrative.  

Ironically when I was young, many of the early games I ran were very, very combat light. Then I started playing with players with D&D experience (many older and supposedly more mature than the kids I had once run for) and they're like, "wait what do we fight and when?"

Much as I am inclined to agree that the story and narrative becomes the end (for me), I don't know if it's fair to assume that's a linear progression of maturity for all gamers. Or rather, I worry about the implication of such a statement, that those who do not seek story have not matured as gamers. I think a mature gamer may also look at gaming objectively and say, really the reason I'm doing this is for catharsis, so whether I get that through narrative, socialization, or being able to crack Monty Python jokes, that's the way to play.

Quote from: Phoenix

Quote from: Vreeg's BaroloThey try to market their system as a storytelling-biased roleplaying system, not merely a combat/adventuring roleplaying system.  It is the overall focus of the game, not the minutia.
While I may be once again opening myself up to deserved castigation by my generalization, most of our younger days as a player involve random combats loosely tied together, and as we continue to game and grow more sophisticated in our gaming and literary pursuits, the end-goal becomes more the story and the quality of the narrative.  

Ironically when I was young, many of the early games I ran were very, very combat light. Then I started playing with players with D&D experience (many older and supposedly more mature than the kids I had once run for) and they're like, "wait what do we fight and when?"

Much as I am inclined to agree that the story and narrative becomes the end (for me), I don't know if it's fair to assume that's a linear progression of maturity for all gamers. Or rather, I worry about the implication of such a statement, that those who do not seek story have not matured as gamers. I think a mature gamer may also look at gaming objectively and say, really the reason I'm doing this is for catharsis, so whether I get that through narrative, socialization, or being able to crack Monty Python jokes, that's the way to play.

In my experience I have found that the more a player grows in their role play gaming experience the more their ability to play those roles grows. It isn't about whether the role involves ug the ripped barbarian who does nothing but beat crap up, or jonathon timorlane the eccentric inventor who is looking for the meaning of life. It is about temporarily not acting like you and acting like a fictional character. Thats why a truly good RPer can make a game run so well, it feels like an awesome story flowing along naturally.

Quote from: Ra-TielThen you haven't had the pleasure to deal with some Vampire LARPers.

Excruciatingly[/i] maladroit.

I played V:tM (White Wolf's vampire LARP) for 10 years and was storyteller for a 40-50 person LARP for 4 years.  It was a good time and some of my best gaming to date, though admittedly not my cup of tea anymore.  Stereotyping LARPers as condescending or even socially misfit is just as ignorant as any other form of prejudice.  If you seriously want to bash White Wolf, just quote any of Justin Achilli's ridiculous rants; my favorite appears in Freak Legion, a Black Dog book detailing fomori and other creatures of the Wyrm.  Everything you say is invalidated when you aim at the players.

That being said, I no longer use WW products for a host of reasons, but none of them include, "The guys I played with were totally full of themselves."  A role-playing game is as good as the people you choose to play it with, because you're playing at improvisational theater with a bunch of geeks no matter what dice you're rolling.

Quote from: EladrisI played V:tM (White Wolf's vampire LARP) for 10 years and was storyteller for a 40-50 person LARP for 4 years.  It was a good time and some of my best gaming to date, though admittedly not my cup of tea anymore.  Stereotyping LARPers as condescending or even socially misfit is just as ignorant as any other form of prejudice.  If you seriously want to bash White Wolf, just quote any of Justin Achilli's ridiculous rants; my favorite appears in Freak Legion, a Black Dog book detailing fomori and other creatures of the Wyrm.  Everything you say is invalidated when you aim at the players.

That being said, I no longer use WW products for a host of reasons, but none of them include, "The guys I played with were totally full of themselves."  A role-playing game is as good as the people you choose to play it with, because you're playing at improvisational theater with a bunch of geeks no matter what dice you're rolling.

Hear Hear

I haven't played a White Wolf Game, but I've read through some of their products, and it SEEMED like a pretty good system.

My biggest problem with your review is its repetitiveness.  You don't really go into any detail on anything, and you just go round in circles, saying they are arrogant, that they are different (but not THAT different), that they aren't any more mature, that they're arrogant, that they weren't better but are now because you don't like 4e, that they're arrogant, that they aren't any more mature, that they're arrogant . . .

I kept hoping it wouldn't be much longer, because I was bored of hearing the same non-arguments repeated again and again.

Quote from: EladrisThat being said, I no longer use WW products for a host of reasons, but none of them include, "The guys I played with were totally full of themselves."  A role-playing game is as good as the people you choose to play it with, because you're playing at improvisational theater with a bunch of geeks no matter what dice you're rolling.

"A role-playing game is as good as the people you choose to play it with,..."  
Hmm.  I think Eladris just helped me re-write Vreeg's 3rd rule of gaming, 'cause that is much more clear and positive than how I've done it in the past.  (I think I once wrote this as, "Sucky players inevitably create a sucky game".  I was a little pissy at the time....)

"...because you're playing at improvisational theater with a bunch of geeks no matter what dice you're rolling."  
Yeah, that's how it should be.  

a few points
1) Why do people call me anti White Wolf?  I concede later that the company is really good once they get there arrogance and snobbish tendencies out of the way and I liked Swords and sorcery.  They do have some horridly sloppy organization.  
2) That marketing thing was horrible.  Its just White wolf showing themselves off as a bunch of snide jerks.  I'm not going to say that D&D 3E is a better game than exalted, through i'm also not going to say visa versa.  There very similar once you get down to it.  So White Wolf saying that there game is the advanced RPG is absurdly arrogant.  And it wasn't directed at 4E (were you could make a valid argument there), it was directed at 3E, which is about on part with Exalted.  Thats just arrogant.
3) The thing is, the two systems are really kinda the same.  I mean, there are niche differences obviously.  But they follow each other very closely.  Most of the "story telling hints" that are given in Exalted and WoD are really just kinda things i've always taken for granted, and in no way go against the D&D ideals.  While i applaud WW for working towards storytelling over combat, they don't really do so any more than pr 4E D&D.  I mean that the I mean, really, WW claims to maturity are really only validated is if D&D is nothing more than an hack and slash game......which it kind is now that we have 4E, but hey.  So they promote the idea of "being better' when they really are hauntingly similar.  My point is that 3E isn't a total hack fest with no focus on anything but combat (4E is more like a niche game thats aimed soly on combat).  So WW's claim of being more story based seem.....off
4) Um, for those who say i'm Anti Niche games, I comment in the article about there making niche games and not judging them based upon that
5) and i've never said that White Wolf is a bad company and make bad products (Exalted and Changling are pretty fun).  Nor that Wizards is an ideal one.  Just that they are far from an ideal perfect system they promote themselves to be
6) Call me crazy, but i don't think the Storysystem game actually is better when it comes to story telling.  I actually think its kinda limiting.  But i'll get into that when i move onto World of Darkness
7) yes it is lacking in terms of details, because i've going to review the specific games over a course of time.  I'll go into specifics there

Quote from: EvilElitestThat marketing thing was horrible.  Its just White wolf showing themselves off as a bunch of snide jerks.  I'm not going to say that D&D 3E is a better game than exalted, through i'm also not going to say visa versa.  There very similar once you get down to it.  So White Wolf saying that there game is the advanced RPG is absurdly arrogant.  And it wasn't directed at 4E (were you could make a valid argument there), it was directed at 3E, which is about on part with Exalted. Thats just arrogant.

Ok I am just going to be really blunt here and say that you're wrong on this. I have worked for companies in the same boat as them. It has nothing to do with them being snide, arrogant, or hateful. Money is the bottom line and they simply found another way to extend that bottom line to other people by playing to their competitors perceived weaknesses.

You need to be specific. Both in your blog, and in your thread responses. "Be Specific" is rule number one, and if you break it, you are wasting your time.

Quote from: evilelitest.blogspot.comTheir motto is 'We aren't Wizards' and their entire game system strives to have a different feel than D&D.

they consider me and other D&D players the unwashed masses of the RPG world while the players of their games are the sophisticated elite.[/quote]What is most annoying about White Wolf is their self satisfied attitude that they are the bringers of RPG story telling enlightenment, and that all other games are shallow pastimes for immature wimps[/quote]particular games[/i] yet. They're criticizing you for making wild and incendiary claims that you make no effort whatsoever to defend.

Here is a penny's worth of free advice. Did you notice how many people have replied to your thread? Every single one of them took the time to read your blog and to tell you what they thought about it. (Remember: they are not ganging up on you. You asked them to do this.) When so many people are saying that there are problems with the way you are presenting your ideas, the correct response is not to get all defensive and write out a scattershot reply that doesn't really address what they are saying. The correct first step is to consider whether or not they might have a point.

Remember also that the reason why people here reply to anybody's work, whether it's a long-running campaign world or a blog entry, is to help its author improve it. This thread is no exception. If you would listen, you might actually benefit.

I hope you have found this post helpful. If you like, I can take some time later to go through your blog post in a similar way, sentence by sentence, pointing out which ideas are sound, which claims need evidence to support them, where the dubious leaps of logic are that should be corrected, and where the typos, misspelled words, and grammatical errors are. Then, your second draft can be dramatically improved. Just let me know if this is what you would like me to do. (Otherwise, I won't do it. I know this sort of proofreading can be bitter medicine to take, and frankly, I'm not sure that's what you are interested in.)

Yours cordially,
-LC

Quote from: Luminous CrayonRemember also that the reason why people here reply to anybody's work, whether it's a long-running campaign world or a blog entry, is to help its author improve it.

I would even venture to say that the primary purpose of the CBG is to criticize each others work. This is a forum to post your stuff so that you can get constructive criticism and feedback on it (and thus improve what you have).

Sure it is most certainly hard to accept criticism, but if you can't, then why are you here? We are akin to a collection of variously talented and focused critics who have sat down to partake of a meal that you have prepared. We swilled your material around a bit like a fine wine, tasted bits here and there to see how it meshed and then got back to you on the overall quality of the meal set before us. Was it good? Does it need more spice? Do the various pieces mesh well together? Most importantly, was cabbage involved?

Quote from: Nomadic

Quote from: 8px2[/size], this is marketing.  And the fact that they are still in the black says some part of the publc agrees with them.  
No one calls BMW absurdly arrogant or a bunch of snide jerks for their tagline of, "The Ultimate Driving Machine"...but that is the automobile equivalent of what you are complaining about.

Just a side note, Wizards is not White Wolf's only competitor, just the biggest one. An argument should take into account that their are other alternatives to D&D (Shadowrun being a big one, and until recently Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay, R.I.P.).

And that's not even counting indies and small companies.

Quote from: EEBut with the release of 4th Edition D&D, I'm going to have to actually agree with the claims that White Wolf makes better games. Wizards went and made White Wolf's fantasy of superiority a reality by making an edition that seems to be based upon White Wolf's negative portrayals of their game as simplistic and primitive.  So for all my grievances with White Wolf, I'm going to have to join the fans that hold it up as a superior system, and I'm going to have to admit that they make a better product.

Next, Exalted.  Oh and for the Record, Changing the Lost is Freaking AWSOME.

(Note, I was also hindered as I got Silent Hill 2 and Portal for Christmas, and do you honestly expect me to write when I could be playing those?  I mean seriously now).[/quote]
this goes on the "How not to..." list under "...end an essay." and "...be taken seriously."
sorry for the ranting.

Quote from: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHY8NKj3RKsYou can even roleplay minesweeper.[/url]

Quote from: NomadicYou can even roleplay minesweeper. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHY8NKj3RKs)

Lol! You win the thread. :D

Nomatic, i think you misunderstand.  I understand why they are doing it, to make money, I don't think anybody disagrees with that.  My point is what they are saying, not why they are saying it.  It is basically White Wolf saying "we are better than 3rd Edition, buy from us" so it certainly falls under my point about insulting and rude

LC
1) Yes i did.  I also read the conclusion.  IE, that White Wolf is not a bad company, nor do they product inferior products, but they aren't the shining beacon of perfect game design that the've tried so hard to display themselves as.  Not that they are bad, just you need to get past there attitude.  
2) Thats a bit of a strawman isn't it?  I mean, isn't that just taking the whole issue and boiling it down to a single metaphor to twist the entire argument to your purpose?  maybe i'm just being sensitive, but i feel like your missing the point entirely.  I'm not talking about the White Wolf people personally, i don't know them so I can't judge them, i'm talking about there product.  I have a lot of beefs with North and South as a show but in the end I'll still admit its a good show.  
3a) Actually it mostly back fired.  Pro 4E people got pissed, people who liked 3E got pissed (because it was directed at 3E, not 4E) and it just made Exalted look snobbish.  They should have let Exalted stand on its own merit, because ironically enough its a pretty good game.  I mean, maybe i'm speaking only from the OOTS board, but hte reaction there was pretty intensely negative, even from White Wolf fans.  I mean, Wizard's adds aren't much better, but they aren't as insulting just......stupid mostly
3b) and there reasoning aside, that doesn't make it any less of a snobbish "take that".  Which is my point
4a) I've said i'll get more into that when i review there games specifically (exalted first edition is up next, very interesting) but in spark note terms, basically they have a story telling system (which is really pretty close to the same except for the scene thing), they use traits instead of feats/skills, and they don't use the class system.  Oh there are other differences surely, and more when you get into the specifics, but playing there games doesn't feel so much "Dude, this is so out there, I'd never think of this" and more in the "Well its different, but i still get the idea.  The basis premise of game play is the same, and dispite all of WW claims, the use of drama can still be used in the same manner quite easily.  
4b) Dyslexia
5) Check
6) Well, maybe i'm being elitist, but the things they tend to point out are stuff that you'd see summed up in a paragraph in some other systems, and aren't really that radical.  Make sure your players are comfortable playing this game, duh.  Make sure they design interesting realistic characters, well yeah.  Make sure you understand the tone and atmosphere of the setting, ok i think i know that.  Make sure you play to make everybody have fun, alright.  Only you know how to play your own game, yeah.  Its nothing radical
7) Depends on who you ask.  According to White Wolf, D&D is a generally hack and slash dungeon running game, while if your into deep epic story telling White Wolf is for you (see add, and most of there book's introductions).  But the thing is.....that really isn't the case.  There is at least as much story telling material in 2E and 3E D&D, and White Wolf isn't somehow being totally out of the box here.  Again, they aren't bad, they just '˜that' much better than Wizards.  The D&D ideals, at least in 3E, is a focus on general world stimulation, and trying to accommodate as many play styles as possible for as many people as possible.  Does it work?  Well'¦'¦..no but they try.   They aren't a primitive game compared to White Wolf through I wouldn't call them superior by any means.  
8) I feel like your missing the point here, or are deliberately screwing the point to make a general personal attack, which seems a little odd.  I'm kinda surprised how you came to that conclusion, it seems a little out of place through.  My point is this, White Wolf has claimed that they produce more mature story telling games '
White Wolf is giving away free copies of the award-winning Exalted Second Edition! We're offering you an opportunity to break out of the Dungeons & Dragons cycle, and graduate to a new kind of fantasy game. We're confident that once you step up and experience Exalted's world of epic fantasy and larger-than-life heroes, you won't ever want to search another 10 x 10 room again.
Why play a rehash of the same old game, when you could be exploring Epic Fantasy Re-Imagined all summer?'
And that's not even going into there claims to greater maturity shown in the WoD, and to a lesser extent Exalted books (which will again, be presented later).  They are claiming that they mare more mature games.  Well, if there games are suppose to be more mature, to check that claim, you have to compare them to the other company.  I mean, that's basic common sense.  And so, White Wolf only makes more mature games that have better storytelling aspects if Wizards makes very immature games that lack any story focus.  So of course you need a comparison.  I feel like your just being insulting for its own sake, through maybe I'm just being a little paranoid, but using a total out of context response like that seems very hostile.  Which seems to be kinda hurting your own point?  IS there no reason why we can't address this in a civilized manner?
9) You can advertise certainly, but if you act egotistical and snobbish in your adds, you are basically being'¦..egostical and snobbish.  There is some general sense of civility I like to see form companies, through they often don't show it (Wizards included).  But wanting to make money doesn't make there statements less insulting.  And for there being similar, well it because there games use a very similar approach to gaming.  The storytelling system's virtues aren't these radical unique ideas that nobody else has thought of, focus on drama, character development and storytelling isn't something that restricted only too there games.  
10a) That seems to be a bit of a double standard.  I mean, your yelling at me for not being specific, and yet now your just insulting my assertion without any backing.  I mean, in all honestly, I really don't give a damn what you laugh at, as long as you provide some actual evidence to back your point, and yet your just kinda being rude.  I mean, that's semi baiting there to a limited extent
10b) Thank you.  I'm dyslexics so editing is hard for me
11) Well when it comes to 3E, white wolf's claims of being more focused on story seem to be mostly hot air. They aren't really more story based, they just do it differently (weather there methods are better or not is a matter of debate).  With 4E, there pretty solidly justified because there isn't any real storytelling focus there.
12)  Actually I was referring to the thing about 'Each to his own design' that Veerge mentioned.  As I say in the article, I'm not against them for being niche
13)  Graduate your game, Exalted main book introduction (more so 2E), the story telling section to an extent.   World of Darkness introduction, and there storytelling section.  
14) Why would you want too? Can't we settle this in a civil manner.  I mean, you can disagree with me fine, but why do we have to be personally insulting?
15) That seems like an odd twist of standards actually.  I mean, its just as much a generalization as any, I haven't gone into any detail about the storytelling system.  It seems like your only focusing on it because you possibly agree with it.  Its just as much a generalization as anything else
16) If this was my final word you'd be right.  But this is the first part in a series of articles.  These are my preconceived notions of White Wolf before reviewing, and these are the themes I'm looking out for as I go through.  I've found some of the more vocal fans to be snobbish at times, there advertising is very arrogant, and there general claims of superiority irritating.  Its something that will come up in future books (no point in repeating myself).  I figured it would be better to get my bias with White Wolf out of the way before getting into the details, because other wise it was going to be coming up again and again.
17) Ok, I've had enough.  What is wrong with you?  I mean, call me overly southern here, but your being insulting, making personal attacks, and making some rather unbaked claims.  I mean, you call it an anti White Wolf article to the extreme (first post) ignoring the sections where I've said complimentary things about them (See the second paragraph on maturity, Sword and Sorcery, there focus on fluff) and taking claims out of context.  I'm not upset about your disagreeing, I'm an opinionated person with some radical views, but I generally expect some decency when being talked to (which other people here have proven to do well).  Is rudeness really necessarily in any way?  Can't we settle this calmly and cordially, not in an belittling and insulting way? I mean, its just rudeness and that's quite offensive.  I like feedback and I like the offer, but if personal insults are somehow a sign an improving work ethic, then you can count me out.  Maybe I'm misjudging you, but your are being very heavy handed with your critiquing here.  
Nomatic (again) I like criticism.  I just like it to be handled in a more decent way rather than semi juvenile yelling.  I'm not against being criticized, through I admit I came here mostly for discussion.  I don't appreciate condescension, its bad form and also bad in the long run in terms of wanting to inspire improvement.  
Vreego- Yes it is about making money.  But that doesn't change the fact that is what they claim.  
Phoenix- Actually I totally forgot about Shadowrun, good point.  I'll fix that tomorrow.
Scholar-
1a) Actaully I forgot about Gurps to, fair enough
1b) Is being insulting really necessarily?  
1c) Hmmm?  I don't differenced them based upon simplicity.  I personally think the storytelling system is somewhat simplistic. Not in a bad way necessarily, just not as opened ended is a prefer.  WW isn't more simple than Wizards, through I wouldn't say they are better either
2) Because 4E has no fluff really.  It has some platitudes, and some token mention, but there really isn't any role playing.  And don't use the fallacy that 'you can make it up' because I can make up crunch.  White Wolf's claims of superiority in terms of storytelling is actually quite justified here, when they say they focus more on story, they are basically right.  I don't dislike WW, I put them on part with 3E Wizards, in some ways better in some ways worst, but I put there dedication firmly above 4E's simplicity
3) Actually there is a good deal of fluff in the PHB and DMG of 3E, at least on the topics that WW tend to address in there core books.  Oh sure there are setting/rule differences, but its still there.  
4) I'm not saying Sword and Sorceries are better than 3E in terms of specific settings, I like Ebberon and FR.  I just like them in terms of fluff when it comes to non setting specific books.  I also like there settings
5) You can make an RPG based on a video game and add nothing to it, which WW actually don't do, they add a lot of content to the setting and puts a lot more detail into it.  Which is rather impressive.
Thank you for your commentary, its been interesting.  no personal offense is meant on people, just some of there use of criticizing.
From
EE

Quote from: EvilElitest(everything else)

Nobody is insulting anyone, well until you started tearing into him right there for giving an honest (brutal, but honest) review. You have been shown what is wrong with your article and how to go about fixing it. Accepting the criticism and using it as a base from which to make your work better is the first step here, not flying off the handle or otherwise disregarding the people that gave the criticism. If you can't, then again... why the heck are you here?

Look, even now in your attempts to defend yourself, you are doing little but repeating yourself.  You say to those who criticize that they are missing the point (multiple times) and then repeat the point, without really even explaining it in a different way.  For example:  Advertising.  You have said that they were being snobbish and egotistical in their advertising for promoting their product as better than the alternative.  People here have told you that that's just simple advertising and common practice in marketing, so you respond that they've missed the point: that while you understand that it is advertising they're still being snobbish about it.  You haven't refuted their points, you have merely given a nod that you read them and then reasserted your own point.  I haven't seen anyone else here who thinks that the White Wolf advertisements were out of line.  

Also, your arguments that you will go into more detail when you get to the specific games does not really address the point that people have been making.  What you have written does not stand alone as an essay, or as a complete piece of writing.  This is due largely to the already mentioned fact that you do not support your points with evidence.  Evidently, you are holding back on evidence until you discuss specific games, but the result is that this essay is rather empty.  What you have here, in a condensed form, could make a decent introductory paragraph to an essay, but truly does not warrant an essay's length piece that talks in circles.  

Quote from: EE4) I'm not saying Sword and Sorceries are better than 3E in terms of specific settings, I like Ebberon and FR. I just like them in terms of fluff when it comes to non setting specific books. I also like there settings[sic]

1b) Is being insulting really necessarily? [/quote]
Nope. This is not me being insulting, this is me being scathingly direct. If I had wanted to troll you, I could have just written TL;DR. Instead, I point out some fallacies in your text. As I see it, this board is for having other people take an honest look at your work and honestly tell you if they like it or don't and for what reasons.

I am not going to respond directly to any statements made earlier in this thread, but I do want to contribute a few opinions to the dialog. As I say, these are merely opinions, so feel free to disregard them as incorrect and/or irrelevant.

Firstly, a critique of a product line should talk about a product line; a critique of a marketing campaign should talk about a marketing campaign; and a critique of a clique within a fan base should talk about a clique within a fan base. Anything that covers two or more of these topics at the same time should be split up into independent critiques. It is a critic's task is to single out a specific, well-defined subject and to discuss its relative merits, not to paint a full picture of the larger environment in which that subject exists.

Secondly, a critique of an essay should be a statement of one's opinions regarding that piece. A back and forth exchange in which one defends one's own points and refutes another's points is not a critique, it is a debate, and rarely constitutes constructive criticism. Constructive criticism is only constructive so long as the author welcomes it. If an author decides to refute a critic's points, no matter how valid they may be, it is not the responsibility of the critic to convince the author of their inherent value.

Quote from: Epic MeepoSecondly, a critique of an essay should be a statement of one's opinions regarding that piece. A back and forth exchange in which one defends one's own points and refutes another's points is not a critique, it is a debate, and rarely constitutes constructive criticism. Constructive criticism is only constructive so long as the author welcomes it. If an author decides to refute a critic's points, no matter how valid they may be, it is not the responsibility of the critic to convince the author of their inherent value.

A debate within a critique only happens when the author refuses to acknowledge the critics advice. Does this mean the critic should keep at it? Not necessarily. Does this mean the critic is at fault. Hardly (in fact I would say it is quite the opposite). It is not the critics responsibility to argue with the author. However, it is the authors responsibility to accept that the critic could be right.

As this pertains to me, I am not critiquing. I don't have the knowledge of white wolf, nor of writing practices to do this. Mine was a simple pointing out of a fact that was incorrect.

On that note, EE, don't think that I am hating on Wizards. In fact the only systems I have played outside of custom are all Dungeons and Dragons (other than a single day I played VtM). I love 3.5e, I am just not offended by the ad because I have been in the marketing environment and know what they are actually thinking.

Could I maybe suggest bringing a halt to posting in this thread? I think everyone's made clear where they stand on the subject, and also that they're not going to be easily persuaded.

While I'm aware that people aren't flaming EvilElitist, just giving brutally frank critique of his work (work that I too, see my first post in this thread, was initially provoked to an extreme reaction by), I do feel that this thread's tone is moving away from the spirit of friendly advice and helpful critiquing that I like to see on the CBG.

Once again, I think we've all made our views clear by now, can we just let the subject lie?

Nomatic, i think your missing two things
1) As i said, there reasoning for doing so doesn't change there attitude.  Yeah, your right, of course they are doing it for more money and fame, but that is still part of there "we are better than you attitude"
2) I realize that i have a personal bias here, but i think your missing a point.  I'm not defending my article out of some adolescent vehement defense of anything i write.  Personally, i don't think its a very good article either, its clunky and lacks detail, but i wrote it more out of an obligation to make my bias towards white wolf clear before reviewing the books rather than letting it crop up in my reviews a few hundred times.  So i don't mind criticism, and some of it here has been quite useful.  But in the same way that you might call any criticism i have of white wolf flawed, so can being critical of my article be flawed.  There are ways of handling criticism, absurdly hostile attacks and odd strawmen aren't the way to do it.  It is much more effective to simply ask a question directly and address an issue rather than simply attack quotes out of context.  The former actually can lead to some very valid and useful notes on improvement, the latter seems more like a slap in the face.  Which is ironic, because LC actually wrote something on the topic, "it doesn't matter what you say if you don't get people to listen. Being antagonistic in your communication will alienate your intended audience, so that even if your ideas are absolutely wonderful, your readership will be less likely to take them to heart. I am of the opinion that no matter what you want to say about another's work, there is a way to say it tactfully and respectfully (and therefore, usefully.)"
Thats seems much more reasonably.  I'm not against criticism, i'm opinionated and have some strong views, so its understandable.  It can just be handled in a civilized manner.  

SH
1) Because the reasoning behind the advertisements doesn't change my point.  I mean, i know why sex is used so often in modern american advertisement, because sex sells.  That doesn't change the fact that a lot of advertisiments are still sexist.  Or i know why fear is often used by politicians, its an effective way to make people do what you want them to do.  That doesn't change the fact its fear mongering.  I know i'm using extreme examples by my point still stands
2) True, it does make it seem somewhat dead, and as a standalone essay it would be very bad.  Think if it more as an introduction, because i'm going to be highlighting elements of the things i mention in this essays when i read through later books.

Scholar
Until 4E, that actually wasn't totally true.  Remember, fluff doesn't have to be setting specific.  the PHB, DMG, and MM are chalk full of fluff that really isn't setting specific (greyhawk really doesn't count, because you really don't need to know about it to play D&D).  Thats good, that makes the game have life and depth to it rather than being a wargame in denial (or if it was 3E.....a really bad stimulation game in denial).  Crunch doesn't >fluff, they are both very important essential parts of the game. 4E is just a collection of mechanics, with some of the most generic fluff i've ever seen thrown in as a topping (the MM is really guilty of this).  So yeah, you can role play with it and add fluff, but i could just fix up 3E mechanically and play that, that doesn't fix 3E's mechanical problems.  4th edition is really just a combat game at heart, there is very little else in it as written (Rollplaying you might call it).  Now, ironically enough, it would be a damn good niche game.  If it was just another game based on D&D published by Wizards, that would be fine.  You'd get a very well balenced combat system.  But as a new edition it fails, because its just cutting out the complexities and simplifying it down to the base elements, and by that standards, White Wolf's claims of being more storytelling based and more maturely written suddenly become true.
2) Sure. I'm not talking about campaign  settings made for 3E by WW.  I'm talking about the books they make that aren't designed soley for a specific game but have a lot of fluff in them.  In terms of setting games, i put FR (pre 4E) as my all time favorite.  However in there non setting games, they still put a lot of fluff into there work, which i like.  That doesn't automatically make them better than Wizards, but they tend to do it more than wizards, so very good for them there.
3) No, your defending a game that you like, that's slightly different.  You don't have to be a troll to seem insulting.  

Kindling, i'm fine with discussion, and i'm fine with criticism.  But lets keep it constructive, not defensive

from
EE

I agree with kindling on this one. There's a lot I could say in this thread, but not a lot I could really add. Although, before i completely give up on saying anything at all, I'd like to toss this out:

Quote from: EvilElitestbecause it was directed at 3E, not 4E

why[/i] in this thread, and I think they would like to see more of that first word in there. This is a good start. When we ask "why..?", tell us "because...". I really hope this helps.

You know, you've got a very good point. My previous post in this thread, though well-intentioned, was certainly overly blunt, indelicate in tone, and peppered with ill-chosen attempts at levity ("Call me crazy," "Don't tempt me.", etc.) that can only be read as nettlesome. That shit is out of line, yo, and for that, I apologize.

Perhaps the driving force behind that attitude of mine was a frustration with the perceived tone of your earlier responses. Perhaps it was a sleep deprivation-related issue, or a vitamin deficiency. None of these are acceptable excuses.

What a cranky crayon! Clearly it is my nap-time.

No hard feelings, I hope.

Well, they realize the add when 4E edition was coming out. A lot of people (myself including) were not very happy about it, and wouldn't buy.  Some went to paizo, some went to 3rd parties, some stoped playing altogether what have you.  And some would start looking into 3rd edition.  

now when this was realized, if it was directed at 4th edition i could get that.  4th edition's main focus design wise is well, combat and having a balanced rule basis (to be fair, it does do that really well), while Exalted has a lot more about storytelling and what not.  So they could legitimately say "yeah, we focus on storytelling" because where Exalted has two chapters dedicated to it, 4E has very little fluff at all.  

But they don't.  Instead they attack 3E for being an inferior game storytelling wise, and implying its a combat only game, which seems very silly. It has lots of fluff, and tries to me a "everything you want" game more than anything....it doesn't do it well but still.
from
EE

Thank you LC.  That was very mature of you.  I can certainly understand the sleep thing, Mid terms are coming up for me, so i'm not getting very much sleep either (and I'm an insomniac so......yeah).  So that is a very civil way to handle things.  I apologize if i've insulted you in my responses, or if i took offense where none in intended.  So why don't we just put this all behind us and try again.  

Thank you very much
from
EE

Quote from: EvilElitestSo why don't we just put this all behind us and try again.

Agreed. Delightful!

Addressing your concerns about fluff in 3e/4e, and D&D overall...

In 3e, I primarily used the rules books rather than the setting information, and while you say these things lack fluff, I tend to disagree. Dungeons and Dragons, just by virtue of its rules and (equally important) its content, has a very specific feel in terms of how things play out. Yes there is a lack of explicitly stated setting content, pregenned NPCs, maps, and what have you, but the assumptions about any setting you might run with it are fairly clear. Now, you might want that specific kind of fluff, with the pregenned NPCs, a starting town, or what have you, and I can't say I'd blame you if you did, but... saying there's no fluff at all just strikes me as a little much.

Now, with 4e I see a continuation of that trend... I just happen to also hate both the content and the rules that support it. I don't like dragonborn (content defines setting), tieflings (again), eladrin (and again), the nixing of half-orcs and gnomes (and again and again), the nixing of various fun and flavorful classes, the changes to the alignment system (they feel arbitrary), or some of the silly new monsters (I think I saw electric scorpions or some silliness like that). So 4e does have lots and lots of fluff. Fluff I don't happen to like, but still fluff. Conversely, the rules include some occasional awesome fluff. I love the idea of the ritual rules, and how anyone can learn to cast certain utility spells. They could have gone further with the idea, but I love the implications for the setting. Likewise, certain cosmology changes (for the assumed setting) I like as well.

Oh, and I'd also note that there's probably a little less fluff in the content than there once was... monster stat blocks once included stuff like when they were awake (some things were specifically nocturnal, so you could try and race through the woods before nightfall to avoid the ogres). I think 4e might've also gotten rid of the entry on how many of a given monster would typically hang out together too, but don't quote me on that. Oh, and random harlot tables. Excellent fluff in the old school stuff. Lots of random tables brought pregen content without being as predictable in a way.

As for why D&D would leave out specific setting detail and leave you only with a "specific feel" for the kind of fantasy it was built for... It's mainly so GMs and groups don't feel tied down. A high priority with D&D was always versatility, from the simple flexible rules of D20 to the constant generation of "alternate rules" and custom content in all generations of D&D. Dungeons and Dragons has always been about being *your* game. I feel that a little less with 4e, but it might be that I'm just less familiar with the rules (fans say they're easy to modify... I don't see it) or because nothing like Unearthed Arcana has come out so far, or because third party support is rare thanks to the killing of Dungeon, Dragon, and the more restrictive GSL. Crap... I'm drifting.

So while I see what you're saying, I think you might have said it better. The perceived dichotomy between rules and fluff seems kind of inaccurate to me, and their specific approach, while it may not be your thing (and I can't blame you), is probably what's helped them stay on top so long.

Quote from: EEUntil 4E, that actually wasn't totally true. Remember, fluff doesn't have to be setting specific. the PHB, DMG, and MM are chalk full of fluff that really isn't setting specific (greyhawk really doesn't count, because you really don't need to know about it to play D&D). Thats good, that makes the game have life and depth to it rather than being a wargame in denial (or if it was 3E.....a really bad stimulation game in denial). Crunch doesn't >fluff, they are both very important essential parts of the game. 4E is just a collection of mechanics, with some of the most generic fluff i've ever seen thrown in as a topping (the MM is really guilty of this). So yeah, you can role play with it and add fluff, but i could just fix up 3E mechanically and play that, that doesn't fix 3E's mechanical problems. 4th edition is really just a combat game at heart, there is very little else in it as written (Rollplaying you might call it). Now, ironically enough, it would be a damn good niche game. If it was just another game based on D&D published by Wizards, that would be fine. You'd get a very well balenced combat system. But as a new edition it fails, because its just cutting out the complexities and simplifying it down to the base elements, and by that standards, White Wolf's claims of being more storytelling based and more maturely written suddenly become true.

I see you've addressed some of my points already. However, I still hold that mechanics and content are (or can be) fluff in their own way, and I completely disagree on the "generic" point. The races section, for example is anything but generic, and this is exactly why I dislike it so much.

I'm not even sure what you mean by 3x being a simulation game in denial. If it's GNS you're referring back to... well it makes as little sense as anything Ron's said. If not... then I'm just stumped as to what you're getting at.

I wouldn't go so far as to call 4e a niche game either, though it's hard to deny the mechanical focus has narrowed considerably.

And when expressing distaste for White Wolf's smug superiority, the word "rollplaying" might be a bad choice. I'm pretty sure they coined that phrase.

QuoteDungeons and Dragons, just by virtue of its rules and (equally important) its content, has a very specific feel in terms of how things play out. Yes there is a lack of explicitly stated setting content, pregenned NPCs, maps, and what have you, but the assumptions about any setting you might run with it are fairly clear.

Absolutely. Hence spawn many of the houserules we see, when people want make the game fit their world.

QuoteAnd when expressing distaste for White Wolf's smug superiority, the word "rollplaying" might be a bad choice. I'm pretty sure they coined that phrase.

Whoa, whoa, White Wolf coined that term?

Pretty sure I'm gonna have to boycott them then. God I hate that word. :P

I've never played or read anything about White Wolf with exception of Exaulted. Which is a POS, seriously.

It has a terrible backbone for the way they handle the mechanics and combat resolution, and the world they present is way, way over the top. It's definitely "inspired", and not in a good way - it seeths of Westernized anime "creep"/fanwank, similar to Book of Nine Swords but to a whole different level.

QuoteIt's definitely "inspired", and not in a good way - it seeths of Westernized anime "creep"/fanwank, similar to Book of Nine Swords but to a whole different level.

It's... probably a lot of fun if that's what someone is looking for though. Aren't a lot of rpgs tolkein-derived "fanwank" anyway? :)

I really wouldn't knock something for appealing to obsessive and enthusiastic fans... a category that would include all of us at some point or another.

LC- Wonderful.  So that aside, what do you generally think of white wolf

Beejazz- I think your misinterpreting me a few times.  I actually agree with you on quite a few things, you just seem to realize it.  
1) Not quite.  I said that 3E at least doesn't have setting specific fluff, it still has fluff along with its rules and what no, not that they don't have fluff.  I think 3E is good when they include fluff, and they should do more of that, hence why i like S&S.  3E isn't setting specifics, not really, its just could focu more on that
2) 4E has very little in terms of fluff and what not sadly.  Its just kind a massive rule base
3) The Dragonborn in 3E were a great idea, they were these cool original creations that nobody else had thought of and yet now they are just a boring "Dragon nut" monster folk..........boring.  Its just arbitary changing and pandering to the masses.  Same with Tieflings
4) I dislike all of those others changes, almostall of 4E's changes were ether simplicity, or abitary.  
5) That is hardly fluff through.  Thats just them changing the rule basis.  4E has almost no rules actually, its just a few sentences with a bunch of rule
6) The rituals rules are kind a good idea in theory, but 4E just uses them as part of the whole "combat central" theme they have going.  they are just these kinda added in details more than anything selse
7) Isn't everybody having magic even more fluf specific than race details?  Like a lot more
8) 4E hates explaining anything in detail, good luck finding cosmology changes explain with anything other than platatudes or "we felt like it"
9) The new MM is one of the worst books i've ever seen, its just a bunch of random states with a few sentences of generic disrciption.  Its a video game monster guide more than anything else.  Its primative
10) The races really aren't that setting specific, its just general details and what not.  Can easily be adapted for any game, or tweaked/altered if you feel hte need.  Its not that overly demanding.  Its good for a game to have details and explanations, other wise you just got a boring rule book, which is just essentially a text book.  
11) I've always find the idea of 3E being too easy to get "Tied down to" kinda silly.  I could see that argument with say, exalted where there is a setting, but with D&D there isn't a setting really, apart form a general cosmology (and that is important in understanding how the magic/souls works) and the creators.  I'd much rather have a game that has a lot of details on how things work rather than one that leaves everything in vague "meh we don't want to do the work" sort of haze.  The latter is just being lazy.  You can change a setting without a problem, it doesn't limit you.  Hell, even the cosmolgy isn't that limiting, unless your doing a monothesistic setting
12) Races are again, extremely generic.  there details, but nothing you can't tweak/adept.  You could run them Japanese, Persian, or Russian from the get go.  Mechanics are only the brinks in a setting, the setting is the morter, design, and what it is used for. That only limits your creativity if you don't like changing already existing things....which is a bit odd
13) 3E attempt (fails) to try to appeal to all types of play styles.  It fails horribly but it certainly makes the attempt to be adepted to anything
14) 4E is perfeclty designed as a combat game.  If your not into endless dungeons run through, as written, it provides very little sadly
15) Hmmmm?  No i was refering to 4E as Roll playing, not White Wolf. And i think they did coin that phrase.


Moinker- I'm doing Exalted next so keep an eye out. It is very anime styled yes, for better or for worst.  
from
EE

Quote from: beejazzNow, with 4e I see a continuation of that trend... I just happen to also hate both the content and the rules that support it. I don't like dragonborn (content defines setting), tieflings (again), eladrin (and again), the nixing of half-orcs and gnomes (and again and again), the nixing of various fun and flavorful classes, the changes to the alignment system (they feel arbitrary), or some of the silly new monsters (I think I saw electric scorpions or some silliness like that).

How do Dragonborn, Tieflings and Eladrin define a setting any more than Humans, Dwarves, Elves or Gnomes, beyond the virtue of the latter 4 being stereotypical tropes.

Because there something that the previous edition didn't have or were completely different.

Dragonborn are a symptom of dragoncreep, something D&D suffers from quite a bit.

I've always found the way race has been handled in D&D rulebooks a little annoying.  I'd much prefer an emphasis on non setting-specific race design, with detailed race-building rules.  For example, instead of writing up rules for half-orcs, dwarves, and halflings, you might have broader racial tropes: Strong Race, Hardy Race, and Agile Race, or something similar.  A selection of templates (subterranean, woodland, arcane, desert-dwelling etc) could be provided - "packages" of special abilities - to be placed over the broad racial trope.  Then you could have a second "cultural template": nomadic, urban, agrarian, etc.  This way instead of binding DMs to a default array of races and forcing them to tinker endlessly with balancing scratch-built races there'd be a much more accessible race-building mechanics.  So you might conceive of a Wise, Nomadic, Subterranean beings - scholars who wander the underdark, or something; or a race of Strong, Urban, Marine creatures, perhaps a caste of beings who defend an amphibious city, etc.  At the end of the race section of the rulebook the standard races could be quickly defined according to these packages.  I think a system like this would emphasize the creative side of the DnD hobby more...  there are lots of gaming systems that already do this sort of thing, of course, I just think that DnD is going in rather the opposite general direction (towards a combat-oriented miniature game).  Not that you have to play DnD as a hack-and-slash game, just that that's the sort of game that 4E seems to present itself as - there's even a line in the rulebook somewhere that says something to the effect of "detailed character backgrounds aren't necessary, just some basic motivations" (made me very angry).

Quotejust that that's the sort of game that 4E seems to present itself as - there's even a line in the rulebook somewhere that says something to the effect of "detailed character backgrounds aren't necessary, just some basic motivations" (made me very angry).

not[/i] necessary. Seriously, some groups don't even play with that, I'm sure. No need to get angry about it. :)

What made me angry was the implication by the writers that the game wasn't really about backgrounds or story.  It felt like the rulebook had an agenda, that it was pushing a specific sort of game - one that didn't encourage developed roleplaying so much as hack and slash.  I don't have the book handy but it wasn't so much a line like "you can have as little or as much detail as you like"; it was more "don't bother with a complex background, its not important."

Quote from: Elemental_Elf

Quote from: beejazzNow, with 4e I see a continuation of that trend... I just happen to also hate both the content and the rules that support it. I don't like dragonborn (content defines setting), tieflings (again), eladrin (and again), the nixing of half-orcs and gnomes (and again and again), the nixing of various fun and flavorful classes, the changes to the alignment system (they feel arbitrary), or some of the silly new monsters (I think I saw electric scorpions or some silliness like that).

How do Dragonborn, Tieflings and Eladrin define a setting any more than Humans, Dwarves, Elves or Gnomes, beyond the virtue of the latter 4 being stereotypical tropes.

beyond that virtue? None, really. That's what humans, elves, dwarves and (to a lesser extent) gnomes from being definitive to a setting. Do you think, say, Eberron could be appropriately defined as "a setting that has elves"?

Honestly, D&D has always been a wargame with a roleplaying game attached for those that want to use it. If you don't like it, play Exalted.

it makes me sick to see people constantly complain about how 'combat oriented' 4E is. Honestly, I've never played a D&D game that didn't have a significant focus on combat. Every choice you make in character creation is about combat, in some form or another, whether in 3.x or 4E.

Roleplaying should be a choice, not a forced enema from holier-than-thou people.

And furthermore, I really love how most people were in general agreement (prior to 4E) that Wizards spent WAY too much time detailing out fluff that, in many cases, would not be utilized by many. The fluff was seen as filler. What does WotC do? They minimize fluff, maximize crunch and those same people that derided 3.x as being giant books of fluff, now condemn 4E because it's 'too crunchy.' Honestly, there is no pleasing people. I would rather pay $30 for a book filled with lots of crunch AND a $30 for another booke filled with lots of fluff, than spend $60 on 2 books that attempt to find balance between the two. Why? Because with the former, I know what I am getting and I will buy them because I want them. The latter will just be filled with mediocre, under-developed fluff that eats up precious page after precious page, thus diluting the entire product.

The inherent problem with D&D is that it has a dual focus. On the one hand it wants to create a standard set of rules that everyone uses. On the other, D&D does not want to tie your hands into a single world and encourages DMs to make their own worlds. This leads to many, many problems when it comes to creating supplements. The first being, which hand do you focus on? If you make a crunch book, the fluff fans will be angry. If you make a fluff book, the crunch guys (and even some fluff fans) will be angry. If you create a book that attempts to moderate between the two, you run the risk of making a book no one will buy. In the 3E era, WotC attempted many books that catered to these 3 concepts. Eberron books were made for fluff junkies, the early completes for Crunch lovers and books like Heroes of Horror and the later Complete books for the mixed crowd. Unfortunately, the '˜appealing to both sides' strategy really did not pan out (and either became niche books (HoH) or were universally disliked (later complete books). Thus WotC obviously concluded that separation of books along the crunch heavy and fluff heavy axis was the way to go.

IMO, it's the best solution to the problem as a whole simply because a) it appeals to me (conceded, I know) and b) appeals to more people.

At any rate, I just wanted to add that I may have a better feel for '˜the current generation of gamers' than many on these boards as I have only been gaming since late '05. My group (all new to Table Top RPGs) did not need an instruction guide on how to role play. It simply came out as we became familiar with the rules. We never needed rules or an explanation on how to Roleplay but, we did need 3 book with rules telling us how to play the game. And that's really the crux of why I simply do not understand all the 4E hate. Roleplaying is instinctive and natural, rules and mechanics are not. I would rather spend my money on books dedicated to giving me rules and options for the game, than waste too many pages telling me '˜well this is how we role play.' The same thing goes for Fluff. D&D tells me to create my own world (utilizing its implied setting) and that's what I do. I don't need long winded paragraphs telling me about the Purple Dragon Knights, or the Red Wizards. As a DM (and as a player) I want the fluff to tell me what the class is and how its mechanics can be used as to understand the class. I would rather have basic fluff (when it comes to classes, feats, PrC's, Paragon Paths, etc.) that can be easily molded to fit into the implied campaign setting and at the same time allows the DM enough freedom to change things (and thus eliminate the inevitable player reaction of '˜Well the class fluff said THIS and that's what I want,,' after finding out the DM changed the fluff of a class).

To put this in terms of cereal, I want my Crunch Flakes and my Fluff Puffs in two different boxes so I don't waste money on Crunch Puffs.


P.S. I love 3.5 and play almost exclusivly with that system (only deviating into Star Wars and L5R on occassion).

[blockquote=Elemental_Elf]Honestly, D&D has always been a wargame with a roleplaying game attached for those that want to use it. If you don't like it, play Exalted.[/blockquote]Ha yeah, you're right on that, and I probably shouldn't be as annoyed; really the game is just being true to its roots.  I suppose I'd felt that for awhile with some books, campaign settings, and articles in Dragon/Dungeon the focus was shifting to immersion and detailed storytelling - not that combat isn't incompatible with storytelling, or that DnD ever stopped having a heavy combat element - but I liked that change in focus.  I'm thinking of products like Eberron and Arcana Unearthed that felt more setting-driven or fluff-driven, that emphasized the whole "different world" aspect of DnD rather than tactics and power-gaming, and I felt that the 4E rulebook, and the edition's general vibe, seemed to be going away from that trend towards story and setting.  You're spot on about the Exalted comment: while I used to be quite into DnD (and still appreciate 3.5) I'm increasingly drawn to alternate systems, particularly very flexible systems, that might offer a richer roleplaying experience.

Just my 2 cp.

Quote from: Elemental_ElfP.S. I love 3.5 and play almost exclusivly with that system (only deviating into Star Wars and L5R on occassion).

Me too except that I deviate to VtM and my friend's homemade system.

QuoteHow do Dragonborn, Tieflings and Eladrin define a setting any more than Humans, Dwarves, Elves or Gnomes, beyond the virtue of the latter 4 being stereotypical tropes.

Honestly, D&D has always been a wargame with a roleplaying game attached for those that want to use it. If you don't like it, play Exalted.
[/quote]
it makes me sick to see people constantly complain about how 'combat oriented' 4E is. Honestly, I've never played a D&D game that didn't have a significant focus on combat. Every choice you make in character creation is about combat, in some form or another, whether in 3.x or 4E.
[/quote]
Roleplaying should be a choice, not a forced enema from holier-than-thou people.
[/quote]
And furthermore, I really love how most people were in general agreement (prior to 4E) that Wizards spent WAY too much time detailing out fluff that, in many cases, would not be utilized by many. The fluff was seen as filler. What does WotC do? They minimize fluff, maximize crunch and those same people that derided 3.x as being giant books of fluff, now condemn 4E because it's 'too crunchy.' Honestly, there is no pleasing people. I would rather pay $30 for a book filled with lots of crunch AND a $30 for another booke filled with lots of fluff, than spend $60 on 2 books that attempt to find balance between the two. Why? Because with the former, I know what I am getting and I will buy them because I want them. The latter will just be filled with mediocre, under-developed fluff that eats up precious page after precious page, thus diluting the entire product.
[/quote]
Actually wizards problem was that it segregate fluff and crunch.  While the fluff was cool, all of the societies they created had no real correlation with the actual information presented.  I mean a D&D 3E society wouldn't function the way the fluff imagined, and the balance only made it worst.  So Wizards cut out at least 50% of there game and focused on making the combat work.  Which essentially makes the game a simply a glorified wargame

QuoteIMO, it's the best solution to the problem as a whole simply because a) it appeals to me (conceded, I know) and b) appeals to more people.

At any rate, I just wanted to add that I may have a better feel for '˜the current generation of gamers' than many on these boards as I have only been gaming since late '05. My group (all new to Table Top RPGs) did not need an instruction guide on how to role play. It simply came out as we became familiar with the rules. We never needed rules or an explanation on how to Roleplay but, we did need 3 book with rules telling us how to play the game. And that's really the crux of why I simply do not understand all the 4E hate. Roleplaying is instinctive and natural, rules and mechanics are not. I would rather spend my money on books dedicated to giving me rules and options for the game, than waste too many pages telling me '˜well this is how we role play.' The same thing goes for Fluff. D&D tells me to create my own world (utilizing its implied setting) and that's what I do. I don't need long winded paragraphs telling me about the Purple Dragon Knights, or the Red Wizards. As a DM (and as a player) I want the fluff to tell me what the class is and how its mechanics can be used as to understand the class. I would rather have basic fluff (when it comes to classes, feats, PrC's, Paragon Paths, etc.) that can be easily molded to fit into the implied campaign setting and at the same time allows the DM enough freedom to change things (and thus eliminate the inevitable player reaction of '˜Well the class fluff said THIS and that's what I want,,' after finding out the DM changed the fluff of a class).
[/QUOTE]
Making fluff is like writing a book.  It actually isn't that easy (and most of the D&D fluff isn't setting specific, it shouldn't bother you.)  It is easy to change it, but making a distinctive and actually good is not that difficult.  I mean, other wise you get a mass of clichés and platitudes like Eragon.  Providing Fluff doesn't hinder role playing, it offers more back ground and ideas, helps with making the game more compatible for other people and styles, and makes the world feels cohesive and logical rather than just a video game in denial

from
EE

Quote from: EvilElitestBeejazz- I think your misinterpreting me a few times.  I actually agree with you on quite a few things, you just seem to realize it.

1) Not quite.  I said that 3E at least doesn't have setting specific fluff, it still has fluff along with its rules and what no, not that they don't have fluff.  I think 3E is good when they include fluff, and they should do more of that, hence why i like S&S.  3E isn't setting specifics, not really, its just could focu more on that[/quote]2) 4E has very little in terms of fluff and what not sadly.  Its just kind a massive rule base[/quote]3) The Dragonborn in 3E were a great idea, they were these cool original creations that nobody else had thought of and yet now they are just a boring "Dragon nut" monster folk..........boring.  Its just arbitary changing and pandering to the masses.  Same with Tieflings[/quote]4) I dislike all of those others changes, almostall of 4E's changes were ether simplicity, or abitary. [/quote]5) That is hardly fluff through.  Thats just them changing the rule basis.  4E has almost no rules actually, its just a few sentences with a bunch of rule[/quote]6) The rituals rules are kind a good idea in theory, but 4E just uses them as part of the whole "combat central" theme they have going.  they are just these kinda added in details more than anything selse [/quote]7) Isn't everybody having magic even more fluf specific than race details?  Like a lot more[/quote]8) 4E hates explaining anything in detail, good luck finding cosmology changes explain with anything other than platatudes or "we felt like it"[/quote]9) The new MM is one of the worst books i've ever seen, its just a bunch of random states with a few sentences of generic disrciption.  Its a video game monster guide more than anything else.  Its primative[/quote]10) The races really aren't that setting specific, its just general details and what not.  Can easily be adapted for any game, or tweaked/altered if you feel hte need.  Its not that overly demanding.  Its good for a game to have details and explanations, other wise you just got a boring rule book, which is just essentially a text book.  [/quote]11) I've always find the idea of 3E being too easy to get "Tied down to" kinda silly.  I could see that argument with say, exalted where there is a setting, but with D&D there isn't a setting really, apart form a general cosmology (and that is important in understanding how the magic/souls works) and the creators.  I'd much rather have a game that has a lot of details on how things work rather than one that leaves everything in vague "meh we don't want to do the work" sort of haze.  The latter is just being lazy.  You can change a setting without a problem, it doesn't limit you.  Hell, even the cosmolgy isn't that limiting, unless your doing a monothesistic setting[/quote]12) Races are again, extremely generic.  there details, but nothing you can't tweak/adept.  You could run them Japanese, Persian, or Russian from the get go.  Mechanics are only the brinks in a setting, the setting is the morter, design, and what it is used for. That only limits your creativity if you don't like changing already existing things....which is a bit odd[/quote]13) 3E attempt (fails) to try to appeal to all types of play styles.  It fails horribly but it certainly makes the attempt to be adepted to anything[/quote]14) 4E is perfeclty designed as a combat game.  If your not into endless dungeons run through, as written, it provides very little sadly[/quote]15) Hmmmm?  No i was refering to 4E as Roll playing, not White Wolf. And i think they did coin that phrase.[/quote]
I realize that. I was pointing out that it might be hypocritical to use White Wolf's own arrogance to define a game you don't like in the same thread where you criticize White Wolf for being arrogant. Unless it was your intention to be ironic.


EDIT: Turn off the caps lock in your quote tags. They're in lower case on this forum.

Quote from: EvilElitestNot them in theory, its the fact they ravaged pior fluff in order to insert races that were obviously there simply for the "Look, these guys are so cool" vibe.

Take dragon born.  In 3E they were a really cool idea, you are reborn as a dragon being with all of this baptism sub text.In 4E they become......dragon people......wow you really are looking deep for originality there aren't you.    Its just them tapping into the whole dragon thing without any consideration or respect for there own material.

IIRC, Dragonborn were originally called Dragonborn of Bahamut, not simply Dragonborn. If this is the case, then the two races can co-exist together with relative ease. Personally, I would rather have a race of Dragon Men than be stuck with the implied setting telling me a Dragon God chose humans and gave them draconic powers. From an implied setting standpoint, it's hard to justify only 1 god creating Dragonborn and, in the case of Bahamut, those with the gift would most likely be locked into a good alignment. This would only lead to a string of 'Dragon Drizzts' anti-heroes which, IMO, is far worse than Dragon Men.

Quote from: EvilElitestTielfings are worst.  In 3E, they are like the great grandsons of demonic beings, and as of such are mostly human with a few slight traits.  That was kinda cool, it gave them this kinda subtle evil sort of vibe.  But the new guys are fool out demonic.  Are they bad?  well maybe if they were there own race, yeah.  But they are just an obvious marketing attempt to tap into the popular name with a new imagine

This is a very similar problem to the Dragonborn. In previous editions, Tieflings were nothing more than 'My Graddaddy got it on with a Devil.' Tieflings never had a civilization, since they were discreet occurrences. Little united the Tiefling race as a whole other than their shared extra-evil-planar heritage (which could come from Demons or Devils, any type). 4E changed this to make Tieflings feel more like a race of people rather than a handful of bastards. I'm not a fan of the implied heritage of the Tieflings but that can be easily changed to fit my ideas.

Quote from: EvilElitestElidaron are kinda cool on there own, but are just a crop out for the elf problem.

Actually I think D&D has cured that particular problem. there were FAR too many Elven (and Dwarven) subraces in 3.5. WotC made a good call limiting the Elves to their 3 most iconic forms - High, Wood and Dark. You don't need any more than that, 3 is perfect. Plus, in the implied setting, Eladrin really bring the concept of the 'Planes are places you can go to at any level' to the forefront of the game much more succinctly than many of the directions WotC could have gone.

Quote from: EvilElitestok, E-Elf, i'm sorry, your a generally good person from what i know of you, but this is the exactly same kind of annoying attitude that White Wolf fans have.  This kinda condescending "more mature than thou" view when it comes to white wolf vs. 3E (or 2E, or 1E).   Here is the thing, yes D&D came from war gaming roots, but it is far from a wargame with some addeded fluff (again, until 4E, which glorifies in this ideal).  If you read the 1E-3E source books, best with 2E, you will find plenty of back story and details within there, at least as much as the WW books offer.  I mean, really, when you get down to it, what does Exalted do that is more "story telling?"  they have a few chapters on story telling, but most of that information is found in the three 3E D&D books, or is setting/rule specific.  Don't get me wrong, Exalted is actually a pretty good game, and I give the 1E version a pretty good review (I haven't finish the article yet due to midterms, but my conclusion is positive) but it isn't brining anything new to the table we haven't seen apart from rules to making your more powerful, or the Storytelling system from WoD, which doesn't seem really that much more story based.  I mean, you this Story book formula, but it just is replacing once per day sort of magical affects with once per scene or once per act ect ect, and personally I find a system that relies upon a focused metaplot really limiting.  Again, its not bad, but I certainly wouldn't say its better than 3E or more story built.  

Just curious, have you ever played Warhammer 40k? if you haven't I like you to read some information on that game. 40k is a honest-to-god hardcore Wargame set in the distant future. The amount of flavor Games Workshop has generated for the game rivals FR, and much of it is better than the bog standard stuff generated in fantasy these days. At any rate, the point I am trying to convey is that Wargames are not flavorless hack and slash events played between 2 (or more) uber-nerds; wargames can be filled with just as much excitement, adventure and fun as any role playing session. In all honesty, there is more flavor in 40k than the implied setting of D&D (no matter the edition). D&D is a wargame but a wargame enhanced by the addition of a Dungeon Master and the toning back of combat to 1 person, 1 character. What I'm trying to say is that, just because D&D is a wargame with the Role Playing add-on, does not lesson the value and the contribution D&D has given to nerd-dom.

Quote from: EvilElitest4E is focused entirely upon the combat.  It is balanced based upon combat, the system of recover is centered around combat (IE, once per encounter vs. once per day) and the fact that everything in terms of story and back ground has been cut more than the Bush environmental budget.  

Once again, the Implied Setting is nothing more than a template on which DMs can create their own worlds. It is not a true setting in and of itself and should thus be limited to the basics. And there's nothing wrong with making classes equal in power. There is no reason, in game terms, to say why a Wizard should be akin to a commoner (frail and boring) until higher levels when he eclipses all other mortals (save the 3.5 Druid and Cleric, for obvious reasons :P ). At any rate, as I stated, D&D (IMO) is a Wargame with a very fun RPG attatched to it. I would rather the rules for the wargame be as succinct as possible so as to  limit the number of rules debates and get back to what's important - killing monsters and roleplaying.

Quote from: EvilElitestBy that argument why should Exalted bother having fluff then? I mean, couldn't you just have Exalted rules without any back ground or storytelling chapters?  
 

That makes no sense. You are equating Role Playing (the thing people do with one another) and the Fluff (the story of the world) to a much larger degree than I am. Fluff is always necessary for RP, I never said you shouldn't have fluff. I'm simply saying people that believe the only true aim of D&D is to roleplay are fooling themselves worse than those 'White Wolf Posers' you hate so much.

Quote from: EvilElitestActually, prior to 4E people wanted more fluff.  The world 3E made didn't make any internal sense, there were massive plot holes in germs of how the cosmology worked, many things had been left unexplained (Is necromancy evil?  WFT is with Poison), creatures had unrealistic backgrounds, and more and more monsters were just being nothing more than random encounters.  Consistency and some basic logic were wanted, with a more understandable and logical game, rather than a massive hack fest.  See also the massive negative feed back towards it
 

I never saw that on the WotC boards. The people decried the needless filler present in the most of the D&D books, especially the latter half the 3.5's run. The fluff we're discussing are two separate fluffs. You are referring to the fluff pertaining to the structure of the implied setting where as I am discussing the hundreds of pages WotC wasted with 'how other classes see this class' and 'A day in the life of this class' and all the other needless text WotC bloated their books with.

Quote from: EvilElitestActually wizards problem was that it segregate fluff and crunch.  While the fluff was cool, all of the societies they created had no real correlation with the actual information presented.  I mean a D&D 3E society wouldn't function the way the fluff imagined, and the balance only made it worst.  So Wizards cut out at least 50% of there game and focused on making the combat work.  Which essentially makes the game a simply a glorified wargame  

If you disagreed with WotC's interpretation of how societies would work under the 3.5 system, then you should be jumping for joy that WotC segregated fluff and crunch, thus allowing you the freedom to develop the type of societies you envision, thus creating a stronger, more focused world that you yourself enjoy.  

Quote from: EvilElitest1)   Its simplified, and dumbed down.  
2)   See also pandering to the masses.  That should never be equated with quality
These are two things that make me light WW because they don't do this

1) streamlined and made easy, so the game flows easier and allows more time for the DM to focus on what he and his players want (be that RP, Hack-n-Slash or both).
2) if your consumer base dislikes the game you created, you do not obstinately continue down the same path, like a dog in heat. You compromise between what you want and what your consumers want and hopefully create a product most can be satisfied with.

Quote from: EvilElitestMaking fluff is like writing a book.  It actually isn't that easy (and most of the D&D fluff isn't setting specific, it shouldn't bother you.)  It is easy to change it, but making a distinctive and actually good is not that difficult.  I mean, other wise you get a mass of clichés and platitudes like Eragon.  Providing Fluff doesn't hinder role playing, it offers more back ground and ideas, helps with making the game more compatible for other people and styles, and makes the world feels cohesive and logical rather than just a video game in denial

The Ironic part of this is believing that D&D is actually a product designed to be original. D&D is full of 'cliches and platitudes' because, believe it or not, that sells. WotC slips the unique flavor in with its flavor books and hopes it catches on, all the while maintaining a status quou fileld with Cliches. Ironically, IMHO, it is because WotC deviated from the cliches (Dragonmen!? Dwarves not living underground!? no Bard!? No Gnome!?) that angered so many fans and made them into spiteful creatures that spew an unending torrent of anti-4E commentary over the web (obviously not you yourself but those trolls exist every where).

"Pandering to the masses" is what's also known as "marketing."

Quote from: EvilElitest[...] But the new guys are fool out demonic. [...]

Devilish. Tielfings are a race of former human beings who made deals with (and subsequently got corrupted by) devils. Devils. Not demons. :-/

Quote from: EvilElitest[...] Elidaron are kinda cool on there own, but are just a crop out for the elf problem. [...]

Are you talking about Eladrin? Because I never heard, saw, or read the term "Elidaron" despite dming 4E once a week for several months now...

Because this seems relative: what I do for rollplay vs.roleplay is to have the players roll for social interactions, but they still have to roleplay it.

Quote from: MonikerI've never played or read anything about White Wolf with exception of Exaulted. Which is a POS, seriously.

It has a terrible backbone for the way they handle the mechanics and combat resolution, and the world they present is way, way over the top. It's definitely "inspired", and not in a good way - it seeths of Westernized anime "creep"/fanwank, similar to Book of Nine Swords but to a whole different level.

I rather enjoy the setting of Exalted, and I'm currently GMing a long-running campaign in it. It really made me think differently about high-powered campaigns.

Too many campaigns - in any system - are "quest-based". That is to say, the PCs have to pursue a goal and achieve it, whether it is imposed on them by circumstances or by a patron asking them to do it. There is nothing wrong with this kind of campaign, but it can get somewhat repetitive.

The approach Exalted takes is different. It basically tells the players: "You have the power to change the world. The world is a mess in a large number of ways. So, what are you going to do about it?"

And from the very start, the PCs have real freedom in making choices and pursuing their own agendas. They can choose whom to fight, whom to ally with, and whom to trick into fighting someone else. They can try to build their own empire or encourage the growth of an alliance of nations. They can choose to become conquerors or wandering heroes. There is no Elminster-type powerful NPC telling them what to do - or rather, all the powerful NPCs wanting to tell them what to do have their own agendas which do not necessarily fit in with the goals of the PCs.

By giving the PCs the power to change the world, the game also gives them the responsibility to change the world. What they do with that responsibility is up to them - and it makes for some great tales indeed...

BJ-
1) Except 3E doesn't actually make the same mistakes.  They are flawed certainly, balence was horrible, it was disorganized, nobody (including the creators) understood how the game worked, too much conflicting infomation, and who ever made diplomacy should have be beaten
2) Well D&D has fluff, but that isn't exactly setting specific.  They have specific settings certainly, but you don't need them to play.  They are still interesting and add a lot to the game, making it feel like something that is actually alive rather just a bunch of useless statistic.  Now something being settings specific i can see your argument.  I mean Exalted for Example is extremly setting specific, so i can see how changing it might be annoying.  Thast being said, it still makes the game really interesting and adds a lot more to it.  But i digress.  3E has, or better put, has when it puts some effort into it, a great combination, detailed and interesting back story, that isn't  tied to any one setting (greyhawk really doesn't count).  FR and ebberon are nice, but you don't need them at all in 3E.  Or in 4E but you don't really have much of any fluff there
3) Its there, but not really.  Its just a bunch of platitudes and empty phrases.  Its essentially added content, nothing special.  But i think i've noticed something here.  4E doesn't force you to play in a certain setting any more than 3E, it forces you to play in a certain style.  That is something quite different.  Setting wise, 4E is generic to the point of dull/lifeless but it does put a lot of effort in a singular style of gaming, IE combat angle, which you have to admit, is very well handled in terms of being effective, if not in terms of fun if your not into that sort of thing
4) 3E dragon born was a whole Baptism theme.  Basically, a mortal who worshiped the Bahamut, the good dragon god (there were optional rules saying it could be another good deity) could choose to perform a ritual and enter an egg, where they will be reborn as a dragon person.  The theme was very much rebirth, baptism, and being a whole knew level of enlightened being, and yet being somewhat alien as your mindset has changed.  And yet the new one are basically just Dragon kin.  Remember them from the 3E MM, one article everybody forgot about them?  4E ditched the old version of Dragon born and slapped a new name upon Dragon kin.  Tieflings s are also radically different, its just ripping off the name of a theme that had only token appearance to the them.
5) No, I agree that they needed a rule reform, 3E is horrible broken.  But it isn't a real reform, its just avoiding the issue. Balance is very important, but make sure you don't dumb down the game in the process of bringing it about.  Was 3E a convoluted mess of confusing, contradictory, and counter productive words (horary for C words)?  Yes, ergo horrible balance.  Was it still an efficient game?  Yeah, just bad rule set/organization.  But here the medicine was worst than the illness, in order to make balance, WoTC just cut out most of the complexity, and if you simplify anything you can balance it out.
6) I'm talking about fluff. They just add some minor details in, the main basis of the game is in the combat, much like a war game.  It makes a very good war game too ironically enough, but not a good Table top.      
7) But when you look at it, it is really just taking powers that were normal in older editions and making them a side issue, IE non combat, which are essentially just rituals now, not important.  Also, it misses the point of rituals.  Ritual magic is cool because it makes magic a mystic, a weird unknown and hard to understand power that requires much focus and chanting.  Magic is subtle, non flashy, mystical, and makes you feel like the old pagan stereotypes or a more mystical world, not like a magic system where everything is flashy and high powered.  But 4E wizards are essentially blaster cannons, absurdly flashy and high powered, so rituals are more like a catch all place to put non combat powers.  Separate but equal in importance, but like real segregation, rituals get much less focus and much less time (ergo why they are more unbalance
8) Its more of an example of defining rule style and game focus.  Everybody having magic automatically lends you to a high magic powered world, and considering the powers themselves, a very combat heavy high magic powered world.  Its far more limiting and demanding.  What I like about 3E is that, at least in theory, you can choose for a low magic, high magic, or mid, depending on how common the classes are.  Now of course this doesn't work (see also balance issues) but it is a great idea.
9a) You can justify any arbitrary claims if you take the time, the point is Wizards didn't justify it, they just said 'Its changed now'¦because we said so'.  Even if you can get an explanation, it still doesn't fit with the prior editions and is unneeded.  Also, the other problem isn't just change, but a system that contradicts itself
9b) That's the problem, 4E is essentially a new game.  If Wizards had a spine, they would have realized it as a totally new game, with some relation to D&D, maybe like a table top version of the miniature game.  If it was realized as its own game, fair enough.  It's a separate game, not my thing, but it is good if your into a well rounded combat heavy war game.  But as a new edition to D&D, it is a cosmic failure
10) Pretty much.  4E lack of fluff really makes it flavorless
11) I can see your point with the new races certainly.  I don't think the fluff in the old edition is really that setting specific, but I can see your argument when it comes to Tieflings and Dragon born.    
12) Both actually, but more the second one.  3E tries its best to be a genetic system that can appeal to anybody, or anybody within a certain broad range of fantasy RPGs.  It fails horrible, but it tries.  And there is very little in terms of setting specific fluff apart from the cosmology, which is very useful in understanding the manner of souls and what not.  So yeah, one of the good things about 3E and the bad things about 4E is that it is too focused on a singular playing style.  
13) I agree, but that doesn't mean the fluff should be bad, just genetic enough that anybody can use it.  
14a) 3E does appeal to me.  I think it is the best RPG we have out so far for my style of gaming.  It is just filled with a massive amount of holes and flaws, and a new edition is needed, but it is still a great game in conception
14b) That's missing another essential part of 3E's charm.  That it tries to appeal to a large group of play styles.  In theory, you should be able to use 3E to play a low magic, gritty song of Ice and Fire style setting, or play a mish mash FR setting, or play Ebberon without that much modification.  However, this isn't possible because 3E is more unbalanced than the nation's economy, and so wizards/clerics/druids ect dominate the game more than anybody else.  
15) Lol, fair enough.  I'l l rephrase that, it is wonderfully well rounded combat game.
16) The thing is, I'm not making a game.  I'm not publishing a game produce.  I don't mind arrogance, its just unjustified pretentious that is what upsets me about WW.  
17) Wait so its

Quote

?
E-Elf (my nickname for you because I'm EE lol)
1) Um, there is a much easier solution.  In 3E D&D MM, there was a race called 'Dragon Kin' who were basically dragon folk and had nothing to them other than that.  You could just make them the new 4E, they are essentially fluff less and could use all of the detail they can get.  Considering Bahumut is a powerful deity in 4E, the old cool dragon born could work.  And if 4E wanted to make it more accessible, just make it general to any diet could do this dragon trick, or maybe any dragon, not just 'Dragon people, enjoy'
2) But there lack of society was kinda cool actually.  It was these subtle, hinted at creatures who had distinct racial traits, like Half Orcs or Half Elves.  Fiendborn (as I will call the 4E Tieflings for the sake of clarity) are just a genetic demon race.  If they had there own back story and name, that would be fine, if kinda out of place, but they are just taking advantage of the popular name and violating old fluff, which is bad form.  
3a) The solution for the elf problem was not a crop out divide, but organization.  The problem still exists, its just manifesting differently.  The way to solve the problem is to either make each elven brand distinct enough that you essentially cover every concept you really need, or make the elf race generic enough it can fit any situation.  The problem is still there, its just different
3b) Why the name through?  It's a rip off of the angel race and doesn't make sense
3c) And you could do that plane accessible thing (which personally I find to setting specific) with already existing planar races, like Gith.  
4) Warhammer doesn't pretend to be anything other than an absurdly morbid war game with a horribly traumatic back-story.  That's fine.  4E however is a Wargame in denial, pretending to be a table top, that's the problem.  Warhammer also has some very good fluff and puts a lot of detail into there back story, which is more than 4E can say.  But I'm not saying Wargames are bad, I'm saying that War games in denial are bad, that 4E is bad because it is a war game in denial, pretending to be a Table Top, and in that it is a failure.
7a) The thing is, 4E is limiting in terms of game play, not fluff (the fluff issue is more the arbitrary and unneeded changes) in that it is designed around a singular style of gaming, one where everything is built upon how it relies upon combat.  This is more limiting than say, White Wolf's games.  I can play Changing the Lost (which I remind everybody here is a bloody great game) as a subtle low magic horror game, a fighting brawl game, a medieval game, a detective game, a dark age based game without any rule alternations necessary (apart from making states fo medieval weapons maybe) and it's a niche game.  In 3E I can play almost any play style within its genre, just badly.  4E however limits you to a singular play style of combat, because that is what the rules are built around.
7B) 3E's is also really limiting yes, but it comes from balance issues and horrible organization, not malice or a deliberate attempt to simplify the game.  
7c) Please stop that assertion.  D&D evolved from a war game yes, but even in 1E, and certainly in 2E it had already moved into an entire realm of gaming (you could argue that Exalted is descended from D&D, which evolved from a war game, that doesn't make it a war game).  2E and 3E are there own style of game, Table Top RPG, and while they have there roots in wargaming, they aren't the same thing.  Pretty much the exact same level of Exalted and other White Wolf games.  
8) One of the main reasons why Exalted is such a good game is because they have a great background and fluff.  4E's simplification of the fluff and there dumbed down cosmology makes it almost the polar opposet to Exalted games. And I reject your assertion that D&D 2E and 3E (I can't speak for 1E) isn't designed with Role Playing in mind, any less than White Wolf's game.  Apart from the claim, how is this the case?  It's something that White Wolf certainly wishes was true, but other than not using a drama based rule system, how is it not made for Role Playing?
9a) Not really.  I noticed on OOTS there was a great call for simply a better organized and better focused logical game, along with word of mouth responses from many players I know.  More importantly, the philosophies the older generation often supported the ideals of 3E, if not the execution, see also the original 2E books and the ideas of the old D&D writers.  
9b) I never trust the WotC forums, its normally the worst place to get viable information
9c) Wait, so fluff is good when it goes into the details of how the regent of the empire, um, spends his time, but the details of how races spend there time is bad? Ok, to be fair, the guys who wrote the 'races of' series hired some really bad writers, but that doesn't ruin the idea of a 'Day in the life of' being useful in terms of perspective, I mean that was one of Kurosawia's original ideas for a movie introducing the West to Japan (the day in the life of a Samerai, where he kills himself at the end as part of the irony).  While I admit presented badly and suffers from writer problems, that information is certainly good, and is no less invalid than a lot of the seemingly minute details that WW seems to focus on.
10a) The societies in theory or the societies in practice?  In theory they vary, but as a rule they aren't bad.  In practice no, but that is the fault of horrible balance and really sloppy organization (I mean logically wizards would rule the world, along with house cats).  That doe not justify segregation of fluff and mechanics, which is a sloppy and heavy handed way to solve the problem.
10b) Also the societies are hardly more focused or more logical than they were before  
11a) White Wolf doesn't do that, so where does that put them?  More importantly, that is just pandering to the masses, and you can never get any quality goods that way. Its like writing a book, you can take the talent out to make it popular (The Divinci Code, Eragon, Twilight ect) or you can actually stick to making a quality book with a detailed and complex story (Song of Ice and Fire).  I mean, call me an Obama fan, but I don't think simplifying concepts is a valid justify for decline in quality, and if you focus yourself on making a good product you can get a following non the less.  
11b) Well that depends if you are a company have actual standard or are just a group of hacks?  If you want to satisfy you consumer base you can either do what made 3E the most popular game in the market and do it better with some actual over haul or just evade the point and make a whole new game under the old title.  
12) Did they rip off legends?  Certainly, but they were the first in making a massive table top game, and started a lot of the clichés.  I can forgive them for ripping off other fantasy when they created there game, and they were the first in there presentation of the concepts that are cliché today.  And they have plenty of orgingal ideas, I mean Dragonlance, FR, Spacejammer, Ravenloft, Planscape and Ebberon are full of them.  Baldur's gate and Planscape torment come from this game.  
Jack of hearts- What about Whit Wolf?  I mock them for a lot, but they don't pander to the masses.  The best quality items are always those made with the intention of being good quality, not just selling.
Ra-Triel
1)   For all intents and purposes, they are a demonic race now, not the same theme as the old tielfings
2)   Dyslexia, go figure.  

Jurgen Hubert- I won't say Exalted radically the genre nor does it bring anything absurdly new, I mean I've been playing D&D in a non quest based style for ages now.  It is just a well-done game with lots of creative ideas and what not.  

I'm going to say this:I think that the real reason for lack of non combat crunch in 4E is that you are expected to ROLEplay, not ROLLplay, thus you don't need non-combat rules. You said it yourself that the 3E non-combat rules suck, so why not just make due without them? The rules don't really add anything to the game except, "I rolled a 16, do I convince him?"

[blockquote=Evil_Elitist] Warhammer doesn't pretend to be anything other than an absurdly morbid war game with a horribly traumatic back-story. That's fine. 4E however is a Wargame in denial, pretending to be a table top, that's the problem. Warhammer also has some very good fluff and puts a lot of detail into there back story, which is more than 4E can say. But I'm not saying Wargames are bad, I'm saying that War games in denial are bad, that 4E is bad because it is a war game in denial, pretending to be a Table Top, and in that it is a failure.[/blockquote]Absurdly morbid eh?  Careful how you throw that word around.  I assume we're both talking about Warhammer 40K, which is what Elemental_Elf was talking about (although fantasy Warhammer isn't all that different), and which I prefer to fantasy Warhammer.  Sure it's the grim darkness of the far future and there is only war - yes, it's got a pretty dark backstory.  But for all their fascism and fanaticisim the good guys of the setting (Space Marines, Tau, Eldar, etc) do have their redeeming features.  And lots of games considered quite highly in the gaming community - Dark Sun, World of Darkness itself, heck even Eberron - have comparably dark backstories full of war and dark gods etc etc etc.  Is it fair to term the backstory "absurdly" dark/morbid, as in either a) far too dark to be appealing (to which I'd strongly disagree, along with thousands of fans) or b) so dark as to be silly (which can be fun in its own right, but I don't think 40K qualifies)?  You seem to be criticizing Warhammer/40K, then turn around and say that it has some very good fluff.  This puzzles me a little.

All of this is somewhat tangential to the point at hand.  Elemental_Elf was trying to say that wargames can entail very rich storytelling experiences because of their detailed fluff (some of the offshoot games from Games Workshop, such as Inquisitor or Mordhiem, especially exemplify this).  Obviously not all wargamers are going to enjoy the story aspect, but then again a lot of DnD players don't, either.  Your criticism around 4E as a wargame in denial seems to be that its a wargame that has pretensions of being more than a wargame, of being a role-playing game, which you associate, I think, with an emphasis on storytelling.  You're not saying that wargames are bad, but you were saying that they were essentially hack and slash affairs without an emphasis on story.

Your retort to Elemental_Elf didn't really acknowledge that wargames aren't incompatible with detailed storytellig - in fact, Warhammer 40K has better fluff/story than basic 4E, I would argue.  So, at least from my perspective, 4E's problem isn't that it's too much like a wargame (since if it was too much like a wargame it could still have a great storytelling element, as in Warhammer).  It's problem, I think you'll agree, is that it emphasizes hack and slash or combat over storytelling - even if it' possible to play a 4E game and still tell a good story, 4E seems prejudiced towards a low-story, high-combat, low-thought, high-dice-roll sort of game.  Where we part company is the wargame element - I don't feel that wargames automatically entail combat>story, and would cite Warhammer 40K as evidence.

I don't want to be too argumentative - I think our feelings on 4E are pretty similar.  I'd just like to dispute the idea that what makes 4E low-story, high die-roll is necessarily a similarity to wargames, unless in fact you choose to completely separate the fluff/setting/"backstory" elements from wargaming, which I don't.  And I also don't think that the 40K backstory is "absurdly" morbid.

Just a nitpick, Steerpike... You listed the Eldar as being amongst the "good guys" of the 40k universe... Much as that term must be relative in that setting, I think it's a complete fallacy that the Eldar are in any way "good"

Sure, they're not capital-E Evil the way, for example, Chaos is (although even there there's room for grey areas. I'm sure some of the traitor marines joined he forces of Chaos more out of a hatred for the Imperium's totalitarianism than a genuine love of Khorne, Tzeench and the rest), but really, they're a dying race who will do just about ANYTHING to stave off their inevitable extinction. Much as I think the Dark Eldar minis look totally badass, I do think that the introduction back in the day of an "evil Eldar" faction planted the seed for people to think "Oh, so, if the dark Eldar are like Eldar only evil, then that must mean that regular, Craftworld Eldar must be good, right?"

Okay, I've had my short rant, you can get back on topic now :D

Steer pick, i read Song of Ice and Fire, I honestly don't thing being morbid is a bad thing.  It is a horribly horribly dark setting, even by the standards of dark fantasy games.  That doesn't make it bad.  Normally that makes it good, its still very very dark.  MOrbid isn't a negative words, its just saying that it has a horribly horribly grimdark setting

And my point is that a wargame can have a good back story and fluff, but in terms of play style it does one partiular thing.  Thats fine, war games are good for those who enjoy them, warhammer is a fine example of of a good wargame.  4E's fault is that they are claiming to be a table top game, but using a war game style of design
from
EE

It is absurdly morbid.  Again, i'm not saying that is a bad thing, but that world has almost no good fraction in the world.  The good guys are the Imperian of Man essentially.......and that says a lot

I think we just attach different meanings to the word "absurd."  I define it as either connoting excess (that is, there's so much of it that it is detrimental) or silliness.  I think you're using it slightly differently.

The Eldar aren't exactly knights in shining armour, true - but neither are the setting's actual knights in shining armour.  I think I'd rather live on a Craftworld enjoying a life of decadent hedonism than on a theocratically controlled industrial purgatory...  the Eldar seem to have a sense of aesthetics and nobility that's lost on even the zealous Imperium or the utilitarian Tau.  I guess its those dim but not yet extinguished values that I consider "good," in contrast with the brute piety of the space marines.  But a good point from both Kindling and Evil_Elitest that there aren't ever pure "good guys," only shades of gray darkening quickly into black (my kind of world!).

Actually i think the world is so crapsack that it is almost borderline parody, you need to have a sense of humor to possibly get through it, it is such a cruel evil existance.  
from
EE

[blockquote=EvilElitist]you need to have a sense of humor to possibly get through it[/blockquote]Oh absolutely, a sense of humor is crucial - as it is when reading A Song of Ice and Fire (which I love, by the way) and which in some ways is more gruesome than 40K - it certainyl delves into the grisly specifics of atrocities in a way that the sweeping, baroque darkness of 40K never attempts.  But when I think of "absurdly morbid" things I think of things like Wormwood: Gentleman Corpse (http://www.templesmith.com/faze3/), a very silly, very funny, and very morbid comic that's absurd in the sense of ridiculous if not "excessive to the point of detriment" (the only thing I can really think of that I'd term absurdly morbid in the sense of unpleasantly excessive rather than goofy or parodic would be the Saw series...).  There's definitely a black humor to a lot of 40K, but it doesn't deegnerate into outright absurdism for me.

Semantics, basically.

Woot, tangent!

Song of Ice and Fire is intended to be a very serious work through at heart, about deconstructing the fantasy genre and producing a realistic and logical story.  It is still funny but its main goal isn't humor, and i Feel Warhammer, which is still a good storyline game humor aside, is really aiming for humor in its horrible horrible universe (see also the orks), and its grimdark setting is almost a thing of humor.  
from
EE

There is an over-the-top feel to it, definitely, and I'd agree that humor is an element of that.  I do love the orks - the comic relief of the world, really.  In fact I've got a 2000 point army of the little greenskins.

*Thread spins out of control*

Yeah, they are wonderful, in such a horribly dark way. red is better..

And i blame crazy thread on gravity, its most likely its fault
from
EE

Quote from: SteerpikeThere is an over-the-top feel to it, definitely, and I'd agree that humor is an element of that.  I do love the orks - the comic relief of the world, really.  In fact I've got a 2000 point army of the little greenskins.

*Thread spins out of control*

Perhaps "*Thread actually starts moving in a useful, cooperative direction*" would be slightly more on target.

[blockquote=My Friend Steerpike]All of this is somewhat tangential to the point at hand. Elemental_Elf was trying to say that wargames can entail very rich storytelling experiences because of their detailed fluff (some of the offshoot games from Games Workshop, such as Inquisitor or Mordhiem, especially exemplify this). Obviously not all wargamers are going to enjoy the story aspect, but then again a lot of DnD players don't, either. Your criticism around 4E as a wargame in denial seems to be that its a wargame that has pretensions of being more than a wargame, of being a role-playing game, which you associate, I think, with an emphasis on storytelling. You're not saying that wargames are bad, but you were saying that they were essentially hack and slash affairs without an emphasis on story.

Your retort to Elemental_Elf didn't really acknowledge that wargames aren't incompatible with detailed storytellig - in fact, Warhammer 40K has better fluff/story than basic 4E, I would argue. So, at least from my perspective, 4E's problem isn't that it's too much like a wargame (since if it was too much like a wargame it could still have a great storytelling element, as in Warhammer). It's problem, I think you'll agree, is that it emphasizes hack and slash or combat over storytelling - even if it' possible to play a 4E game and still tell a good story, 4E seems prejudiced towards a low-story, high-combat, low-thought, high-dice-roll sort of game. Where we part company is the wargame element - I don't feel that wargames automatically entail combat>story, and would cite Warhammer 40K as evidence.

I don't want to be too argumentative - I think our feelings on 4E are pretty similar. I'd just like to dispute the idea that what makes 4E low-story, high die-roll is necessarily a similarity to wargames, unless in fact you choose to completely separate the fluff/setting/"backstory" elements from wargaming, which I don't. And I also don't think that the 40K backstory is "absurdly" morbid. [/blockquote]

Christmas, crunch and fluff need to be treated seperately.  Always.  It's like Gammar structure and story content, a piece of writing has both, but they must be looked at very differently and independently, though a critic can and should point out if the structural choices made are a good match for the type/genre of written work.  Of Course wargames are not 'incompatable' with Backstory Fluff, I can write a 50 page backstory for a game system that uses 2 dead batteries for miniatures and a d6 for combat resolution.

The question at hand actually has nothing to do with 'backstory/fluff', it deals with a corrollary of Vreeg's Rule One of Setting design, "Make sure the system you choose for  a setting matches the type of game you want to play, or the game will eventually match the system".  It's not that a wargame or 4e are incompatible with Fluff, it is that  (at different levels), their rule sytems are inimical to roleplaying.  When EE says,

 
[blockquote=EE]"Warhammer doesn't pretend to be anything other than an absurdly morbid war game with a horribly traumatic back-story. That's fine. 4E however is a Wargame in denial, pretending to be a table top, that's the problem. Warhammer also has some very good fluff and puts a lot of detail into there back story, which is more than 4E can say. But I'm not saying Wargames are bad, I'm saying that War games in denial are bad, that 4E is bad because it is a war game in denial, pretending to be a Table Top, and in that it is a failure.
7a) The thing is, 4E is limiting in terms of game play, not fluff (the fluff issue is more the arbitrary and unneeded changes) in that it is designed around a singular style of gaming, one where everything is built upon how it relies upon combat. This is more limiting than say, White Wolf's games."[/blockquote]

He is saying the toolset included in 4e has moved closer to the toolset you'd find in a wargame, and further away from the toolset you'd find in a game that might engender roleplaying.

or, that is my take.

Much clearer, thank you Vreeg.  I agree that 4E's rules resemble a wargame's rules more than a roleplaying game's, even if 4E doesn't necessarily holistically resemble a wargame per se.

Thank you Vreeg, that is a very good clarification.  

yeah, my deal about 4E i that it resembles a wargame in-terms of design more than than say, a table top.  Does that make Wargames bad?  certainly not.  It doesn't make 4E a good table top through . If 4E was designed as a war game openly, i think it would be a better game.  Would it be a good wargame?  I can't honestly say, i don't know it well enough comapered but hey...
from
EE

Hm, this thread is fast becoming ANOTHER reason for me not to bother checking out 4e...

Quote from: EvilElitestIf 4E was designed as a war game openly, i think it would be a better game.

There might be some truth to this in that 4E was intentionally designed to 'play nicer' with the D&D minis game. The original intent was to make the systems very similar so that people could go between both games with minimal instruction (at least when compared to the huge difference between 3.x and the 3E D&D minis game).

It is deliciously ironic that mere months after the official release of 4E, WotC decided to pull the plug on the entire minis game. I wonder how different 4E would have been if they had not been forced to merge the two games to the extent that they did.

Kindling- I think the game itself can merit to that lol

E-Elf
1) Yeah, its partly that but I think it really boils down to lazyness.  WotC knew there was a balance issue, and wanted to solve it with mimimal work.  So they do this kinda crop out, because they just make it a combat game and cut out Everything else, in a way to avoid the arguments.  Simplify aligniment to avoid those arguments, cut out back story to avoid those dicussions, simply ignore world consistency ect ect ect.  But your right, in the end, it actually would make a great supplement for the minies.  Your totally right when you say that 3E miniture game doesn't make much sense compared to the actual 3E game, and you could say 4E, if it wasn't a table top, it could be a fin way to make the minature game a legitimate game on its own.
2) Yeah, that is a bit of an irony there, i'm kinda confused why they did that
from
EE