Who else is pisssed? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Who else is pisssed? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Pitiless_Interfector
12-27-07, 08:49 PM Okay, as I read the 4e preview released this month and digested the material on the actual races and classes, I was jumping for joy inside. Then I went back and read the introductory chapters, and what do I find?

So we've made 4th Edition simpler to play by simplifying monsters and NPCs. The new system is not overly concerned with simulating interactions between monsters and nonplayer characters when the PCs are not on stage.

A part of me recognizes that this makes game play easier on everyone [especially the DM] and moves the game forward. Another part of me (the part that studies textbooks on plate tectonics, weather patterns, and dirt for Christ's sake, and reads everything from The Prince to Stupid White Men, all in the name of enhancing my game world's verisimilitude) thinks "WotC iz mony-grubin' BASTADS!"

So, what's the consensus? Is game-play more important than realism?

Wait. That comes out to "POLL: Who takes their game too seriously?," doesn't it?

BTW, who else laughed at the picture on page 59? The one with the fighter at each tier?
M1kh43l_P4r4d1s0
12-27-07, 09:36 PM I require some realism, but gameplay is most important. I mean with out it, there is no game.

Also, what be this pic you speak of?
Khallhadras
12-27-07, 11:38 PM You shouldn't worry about such matters until they are officially exhibited. There could be a complete change over, you never know. This also really isn't the thread for such either...it would be much more tactful to post this in the forum that deals with 4E. You won't only save the WizO's some trouble but it would also present opportunities for others who feel the same way about 4E or differently to debate such. Not trying to sound like the paradigm of law and justice, I am not by far, but this is really isn't the forum for it. As a second note I would like to add that I doubt very many homebrewers could care less, most are homebrewers for life, despite whether the edition is 2 or 3.0. :P

Sorry if any of this seemed bristly, it just seems that way to me.

Best Regards,
Khallhadras
Pitiless_Interfector
12-28-07, 12:09 AM You shouldn't worry about such matters until they are officially exhibited. There could be a complete change over, you never know. This also really isn't the thread for such either...it would be much more tactful to post this in the forum that deals with 4E. You won't only save the WizO's some trouble but it would also present opportunities for others who feel the same way about 4E or differently to debate such. Not trying to sound like the paradigm of law and justice, I am not by far, but this is really isn't the forum for it. As a second note I would like to add that I doubt very many homebrewers could care less, most are homebrewers for life, despite whether the edition is 2 or 3.0. :P

Sorry if any of this seemed bristly, it just seems that way to me.

Best Regards,
Khallhadras

Well, there's a forum for adventures, but this is about realism, rather than the specific plots that PCs become entangled in. I'm talking about stuff that happened before the adventure, or after it, or at the same time but somewhere else. Basically, everywhere.

And since WotC is concerned about the gameplay experience of all four (on average) participants, not just the DM, they're liable to continue in the direction they're going. After all, it IS good business sense.
Naderion
12-28-07, 03:30 AM There's a 4th Ed. forum.
GoriceXII
12-29-07, 03:01 PM I'd only be irritated if I intended to buy the stuff. Basically I use whatever works best for my campaign with my players as it comes up. I'll check out reviews and stuff but frankly every edition has had something I've liked. I like the 'points of light' idea as a solid concept, but I was already doing that on my own. One of the cool things about D&D is that unlike a computer game you can adapt, change, do whatever you want with it. I've put a lot into my campaign/homebrew already and I intend to just plug away at it.
Ace_of_time
12-30-07, 01:18 AM You can keep it from being locked by comparing the game that is used now to how it might change. You would have to keep it more about the 3.5 then 4e. Goodluck.
Ace_of_time
12-30-07, 01:19 AM There's a 4th Ed. forum.Yes, and we are lucky the whole community didn't crash this time.:D
Zousha_Omenohu
12-30-07, 02:07 AM So is the reason this is here that simplifying interaction that happens "off camera" effectively forces you to create simpler (or as more hostile 4e detractors would say, "dumbed down") campaigns? If that isn't what the topic is about, then I have to echo the previous statements that this discussion would be better served by being moved to the 4e board.
NorthWind
12-30-07, 03:36 PM I don't understand the problem, if you'll pardon my green-ness. Unless I'm mistaken, 3.5 doesn't have any rules for off-screen interactions between NPCs anyways.

NPC interactions that don't concern the PCs aren't resolved by stats, no? IMHO, simple rules won't simplify the game world unless the DM allows them to.
Ace_of_time
12-30-07, 08:26 PM Your suppose to decide what happens in your world and change things as the Players are playing so they think of the world as an ever changing world. It would seem that 4e is just worried about what happens just with what the PCs do in the world and no extra stuff so to speak.
EvilVegan
01-01-08, 03:37 PM You're suppose to decide what happens in your world and change things as the Players are playing so they think of the world as an ever changing world. It would seem that 4e is just worried about what happens just with what the PCs do in the world and no extra stuff so to speak.
Please quote the 3.5 source that dealt with global repercussions of PC actions.

Please show that simplified encounters excludes global repercussions from said encounters.
CCS
01-02-08, 04:20 PM I'm thinking the 4th ed aproach to how monsters/NPCs react to each other in the absence of the PCs.....Won't affect me at all.

Why? Because after 28 years of gaming experience I've developed my own version of what works.
And I'll go right on using it regardless of what edition # we're on.
BENEVOLENT_DM
01-02-08, 04:54 PM Okay, as I read the 4e preview released this month and digested the material on the actual races and classes, I was jumping for joy inside. Then I went back and read the introductory chapters, and what do I find?

A part of me recognizes that this makes game play easier on everyone [especially the DM] and moves the game forward. Another part of me (the part that studies textbooks on plate tectonics, weather patterns, and dirt for Christ's sake, and reads everything from The Prince to Stupid White Men, all in the name of enhancing my game world's verisimilitude) thinks "WotC iz mony-grubin' BASTADS!"

So, what's the consensus? Is game-play more important than realism?

Wait. That comes out to "POLL: Who takes their game too seriously?," doesn't it?

BTW, who else laughed at the picture on page 59? The one with the fighter at each tier?

I don't see this as a real change, and the quote says they are not "overly concerned" which could mean almost anything.

Just think if DM's were going to put as much work into each goblin that the players fight as each player does into his PC. It would be kind of pointless.

If The PC's hear of a great region affection battle in the next kingdom, do you play it out in your down time, or do you just decide who wins and what ramifications it has on the PC's? I do the latter, but we alway play out any battles the PC's fight.

Off screen is off screen. Put some thought into it, but it does not have to be part of a system.
bushi
01-02-08, 09:39 PM Most d6 and d10 games work this way. If you ask me, this might just make Dungeons and Dragons worth playing. Take all of the research you've done and make a rich, living campaign setting. Don't worry about rule 17 on page 132. My friend Karl has a house rule; "The Divine Right of GM's". If he wants an ogre shaman to breath fire, it breaths freakin' FIRE. Who really cares about what AD&D 2nd, 3e, 3.5 or 4th addition rules say?
Anuvrix
01-03-08, 09:24 AM "The Divine Right of GM's". If he wants an ogre shaman to breath fire, it breaths freakin' FIRE. Who really cares about what AD&D 2nd, 3e, 3.5 or 4th addition rules say?

EXACTLY.

It doesn't matter what rules you use, all you have to do is be a half-decent DM to make things work. If you don't like a rule or system, DON'T USE IT. :eek:

People starting arguments like this make me cry for the human race.:weep:

No offense intended.:D
Ace_of_time
01-04-08, 09:01 PM Please quote the 3.5 source that dealt with global repercussions of PC actions.

Please show that simplified encounters excludes global repercussions from said encounters.Page 6 in the DMG give this basic advice. I have read anything yet about 4e and was going by the other poster. That is why I said"It would seem". I never said the were global repercussions. I said they should feel like the world is changing around them. Forthat you would need to look in chapter 5 page 131 under "A Reactive Environment".
Ace_of_time
01-04-08, 09:05 PM I don't see this as a real change, and the quote says they are not "overly concerned" which could mean almost anything.

Just think if DM's were going to put as much work into each goblin that the players fight as each player does into his PC. It would be kind of pointless.

If The PC's hear of a great region affection battle in the next kingdom, do you play it out in your down time, or do you just decide who wins and what ramifications it has on the PC's? I do the latter, but we alway play out any battles the PC's fight.

Off screen is off screen. Put some thought into it, but it does not have to be part of a system.That, Most of the time, means that the DM's is free to do it how they wish but that the rule are based off it.
CelineSSauve
01-06-08, 07:44 PM So, what's the consensus? Is game-play more important than realism?

That depends greatly on who you're playing with and how much work the DM wants to do.

I've had DMs that make it up as they need.

I had one DM who rolled out the round of combat where the PCs were joining in later so that each side would have wounded if not corpses by the time we got there.

My present DM just alluded (this a PvP game, so his post to another player planted a few seeds of doubt in her mind) to the fact that the Black Dragon who has taken over the land might very well have already been defeated while we were being chased by the daemons.

And that's the problem there.

Sure, other are bound to be more powerful people in the world than the PCs, but then we'd never get jobs and all the truly dangerous foes would have been contracted off to said stronger NPCs.

This is an issue for all editions, not just 4th.
Zousha_Omenohu
01-06-08, 09:19 PM Again, I don't see why this issue is being discussed here in Campaign Design. It seems more like a general statement than one specifically related to campaign design.
elondir
01-07-08, 04:15 PM I prefer if rules are independent of fluff; it allows our fluff to be completely independent of the latest edition of the rules. My own game world has survived from 2e.
Etarnon
01-07-08, 09:45 PM Why be ******?

Just play whatever you want. Nobody is holding a gun to your head.

Over the next year, we'll be playing Spycraft, Traveller, and Last Unicorn Star trek, all dead games. so what?

Play what you want.

The fear that "You'll never be able to find players for a no longer supported game" is not true in all cases. Not here in western Ohio, at least, not by a long shot.
Illithid Tentacles
01-07-08, 11:20 PM So... you're upset that WotC is making it easier for people to flesh out thier game worlds enough for it to seem more realistic without having to spend hours working on it?
WeyrleaderZor
01-09-08, 12:36 PM So... you're upset that WotC is making it easier for people to flesh out thier game worlds enough for it to seem more realistic without having to spend hours working on it?

I don't mind that, but what upsets me about this 4th edition change is the heavy "make it flashy and look impressive with big combos (or powers) and huge numbers" influence of the MMORPG genre. This is a table top game, NOT an MMORPG. I also hate the idea that the books will be fewer pages (saw that on Amazon.com) and will cost about $5 more for those fewer pages. I don't like that they're ripping out traditional races (Gnomes aren't "classic" enough for them to bother keeping, but Tieflings, and the Dragonman (whatever it's actually called, I forget at the moment) are?!).

And "evil paladins" is announced in such a manner that it's clear they're making the game appeal to the action-only Alien V. Predator type of play. "Give me bad guys to play and let me kill heroes, let me have demon-blood bad-[ahem]s and we'll really be gritty and edgy with the game." That's how one of my players put it when he read it, he's a part-time power gamer (he says that's WHY he plays WOW actually - to do that sort of thing) but he plays the "real D&D" (again, his words) to play a "real role playing game."

And their excuses for the Eladrin/Elves thing... They don't even justify it properly, most worlds aren't so "over saturated with subrace choices" as a mainstream option. The ONLY one that comes to mind that IS that way is Forgotten Realms in which there are a dozen or so subraces of the various races in the campaign core book.

And just for the record, the author(s)/editor(s) should have tried to be more honest with their justification text. They list "Aerenal elves" and "Valenar elves" in the list of subraces. That's just preying on players that don't know Eberron and don't know that those are two elven NATIONS. It'd be the same thing to say we've got "Canadian humans," "Mexican humans," and "American humans" making it so confusing as to what races dominates the continent of North America. Shame on them for that rather lame attempt to muddle up a rather baseless argument. If they wanted to make a change for the sake of a "cool factor" or to differentiate the "less magical" and "more magical" elven bloodlines into true races that's fine - but just say that. Don't make such a flimsy spurious claim that the relative few subraces (per race that have them) is too confusing.

Gamers are not stupid, in fact we tend to be more well read and literate than many people I've met. I can't count the number of times I've seen game shows where people don't know words or facts that are fairly common that I've learned from gaming alone (much less the habit of reading that table-top RPG's tend to encourage); and I've heard a distressing number of people (even when I was in school) say they didn't want to get into RPGs because there was "too much reading" and comments of the sort. Gamers aren't dumb, we're not "overwhelmed" by choices, no matter how silly some of them are and how much "fluff" it puts in the way of business sometimes... New gamers, MAYBE they can make that argument, but the new gamer is more likely to have friends that are not inexperienced to help them and more likely to play something basic to get the gist of things - and there's nothing too complex about the races/subraces to suggest that players can't, haven't, or won't.

:) Well, that's my $0.02. ;)
Illithid Tentacles
01-09-08, 07:58 PM (Snipped for space.)

Well, my attitude about it is "Wait until the 4e books actually, technically, exist, read them, THEN pass judgement on thier quality." You could be getting worked up over nothing.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Pitiless_Interfector 12-27-07, 08:49 PM	Okay, as I read the 4e preview released this month and digested the material on the actual races and classes, I was jumping for joy inside. Then I went back and read the introductory chapters, and what do I find? So we've made 4th Edition simpler to play by simplifying monsters and NPCs. The new system is not overly concerned with simulating interactions between monsters and nonplayer characters when the PCs are not on stage. A part of me recognizes that this makes game play easier on everyone [especially the DM] and moves the game forward. Another part of me (the part that studies textbooks on plate tectonics, weather patterns, and dirt for Christ's sake, and reads everything from The Prince to Stupid White Men, all in the name of enhancing my game world's verisimilitude) thinks "WotC iz mony-grubin' BASTADS!" So, what's the consensus? Is game-play more important than realism? Wait. That comes out to "POLL: Who takes their game too seriously?," doesn't it? BTW, who else laughed at the picture on page 59? The one with the fighter at each tier?
M1kh43l_P4r4d1s0 12-27-07, 09:36 PM	I require some realism, but gameplay is most important. I mean with out it, there is no game. Also, what be this pic you speak of?
Khallhadras 12-27-07, 11:38 PM	You shouldn't worry about such matters until they are officially exhibited. There could be a complete change over, you never know. This also really isn't the thread for such either...it would be much more tactful to post this in the forum that deals with 4E. You won't only save the WizO's some trouble but it would also present opportunities for others who feel the same way about 4E or differently to debate such. Not trying to sound like the paradigm of law and justice, I am not by far, but this is really isn't the forum for it. As a second note I would like to add that I doubt very many homebrewers could care less, most are homebrewers for life, despite whether the edition is 2 or 3.0. :P Sorry if any of this seemed bristly, it just seems that way to me. Best Regards, Khallhadras
Pitiless_Interfector 12-28-07, 12:09 AM	You shouldn't worry about such matters until they are officially exhibited. There could be a complete change over, you never know. This also really isn't the thread for such either...it would be much more tactful to post this in the forum that deals with 4E. You won't only save the WizO's some trouble but it would also present opportunities for others who feel the same way about 4E or differently to debate such. Not trying to sound like the paradigm of law and justice, I am not by far, but this is really isn't the forum for it. As a second note I would like to add that I doubt very many homebrewers could care less, most are homebrewers for life, despite whether the edition is 2 or 3.0. :P Sorry if any of this seemed bristly, it just seems that way to me. Best Regards, Khallhadras Well, there's a forum for adventures, but this is about realism, rather than the specific plots that PCs become entangled in. I'm talking about stuff that happened before the adventure, or after it, or at the same time but somewhere else. Basically, everywhere. And since WotC is concerned about the gameplay experience of all four (on average) participants, not just the DM, they're liable to continue in the direction they're going. After all, it IS good business sense.
Naderion 12-28-07, 03:30 AM	There's a 4th Ed. forum.
GoriceXII 12-29-07, 03:01 PM	I'd only be irritated if I intended to buy the stuff. Basically I use whatever works best for my campaign with my players as it comes up. I'll check out reviews and stuff but frankly every edition has had something I've liked. I like the 'points of light' idea as a solid concept, but I was already doing that on my own. One of the cool things about D&D is that unlike a computer game you can adapt, change, do whatever you want with it. I've put a lot into my campaign/homebrew already and I intend to just plug away at it.
Ace_of_time 12-30-07, 01:18 AM	You can keep it from being locked by comparing the game that is used now to how it might change. You would have to keep it more about the 3.5 then 4e. Goodluck.
Ace_of_time 12-30-07, 01:19 AM	There's a 4th Ed. forum.Yes, and we are lucky the whole community didn't crash this time.:D
Zousha_Omenohu 12-30-07, 02:07 AM	So is the reason this is here that simplifying interaction that happens "off camera" effectively forces you to create simpler (or as more hostile 4e detractors would say, "dumbed down") campaigns? If that isn't what the topic is about, then I have to echo the previous statements that this discussion would be better served by being moved to the 4e board.
NorthWind 12-30-07, 03:36 PM	I don't understand the problem, if you'll pardon my green-ness. Unless I'm mistaken, 3.5 doesn't have any rules for off-screen interactions between NPCs anyways. NPC interactions that don't concern the PCs aren't resolved by stats, no? IMHO, simple rules won't simplify the game world unless the DM allows them to.
Ace_of_time 12-30-07, 08:26 PM	Your suppose to decide what happens in your world and change things as the Players are playing so they think of the world as an ever changing world. It would seem that 4e is just worried about what happens just with what the PCs do in the world and no extra stuff so to speak.
EvilVegan 01-01-08, 03:37 PM	You're suppose to decide what happens in your world and change things as the Players are playing so they think of the world as an ever changing world. It would seem that 4e is just worried about what happens just with what the PCs do in the world and no extra stuff so to speak. Please quote the 3.5 source that dealt with global repercussions of PC actions. Please show that simplified encounters excludes global repercussions from said encounters.
CCS 01-02-08, 04:20 PM	I'm thinking the 4th ed aproach to how monsters/NPCs react to each other in the absence of the PCs.....Won't affect me at all. Why? Because after 28 years of gaming experience I've developed my own version of what works. And I'll go right on using it regardless of what edition # we're on.
BENEVOLENT_DM 01-02-08, 04:54 PM	Okay, as I read the 4e preview released this month and digested the material on the actual races and classes, I was jumping for joy inside. Then I went back and read the introductory chapters, and what do I find? A part of me recognizes that this makes game play easier on everyone [especially the DM] and moves the game forward. Another part of me (the part that studies textbooks on plate tectonics, weather patterns, and dirt for Christ's sake, and reads everything from The Prince to Stupid White Men, all in the name of enhancing my game world's verisimilitude) thinks "WotC iz mony-grubin' BASTADS!" So, what's the consensus? Is game-play more important than realism? Wait. That comes out to "POLL: Who takes their game too seriously?," doesn't it? BTW, who else laughed at the picture on page 59? The one with the fighter at each tier? I don't see this as a real change, and the quote says they are not "overly concerned" which could mean almost anything. Just think if DM's were going to put as much work into each goblin that the players fight as each player does into his PC. It would be kind of pointless. If The PC's hear of a great region affection battle in the next kingdom, do you play it out in your down time, or do you just decide who wins and what ramifications it has on the PC's? I do the latter, but we alway play out any battles the PC's fight. Off screen is off screen. Put some thought into it, but it does not have to be part of a system.
bushi 01-02-08, 09:39 PM	Most d6 and d10 games work this way. If you ask me, this might just make Dungeons and Dragons worth playing. Take all of the research you've done and make a rich, living campaign setting. Don't worry about rule 17 on page 132. My friend Karl has a house rule; "The Divine Right of GM's". If he wants an ogre shaman to breath fire, it breaths freakin' FIRE. Who really cares about what AD&D 2nd, 3e, 3.5 or 4th addition rules say?
Anuvrix 01-03-08, 09:24 AM	"The Divine Right of GM's". If he wants an ogre shaman to breath fire, it breaths freakin' FIRE. Who really cares about what AD&D 2nd, 3e, 3.5 or 4th addition rules say? EXACTLY. It doesn't matter what rules you use, all you have to do is be a half-decent DM to make things work. If you don't like a rule or system, DON'T USE IT. :eek: People starting arguments like this make me cry for the human race.:weep: No offense intended.:D
Ace_of_time 01-04-08, 09:01 PM	Please quote the 3.5 source that dealt with global repercussions of PC actions. Please show that simplified encounters excludes global repercussions from said encounters.Page 6 in the DMG give this basic advice. I have read anything yet about 4e and was going by the other poster. That is why I said"It would seem". I never said the were global repercussions. I said they should feel like the world is changing around them. Forthat you would need to look in chapter 5 page 131 under "A Reactive Environment".
Ace_of_time 01-04-08, 09:05 PM	I don't see this as a real change, and the quote says they are not "overly concerned" which could mean almost anything. Just think if DM's were going to put as much work into each goblin that the players fight as each player does into his PC. It would be kind of pointless. If The PC's hear of a great region affection battle in the next kingdom, do you play it out in your down time, or do you just decide who wins and what ramifications it has on the PC's? I do the latter, but we alway play out any battles the PC's fight. Off screen is off screen. Put some thought into it, but it does not have to be part of a system.That, Most of the time, means that the DM's is free to do it how they wish but that the rule are based off it.
CelineSSauve 01-06-08, 07:44 PM	So, what's the consensus? Is game-play more important than realism? That depends greatly on who you're playing with and how much work the DM wants to do. I've had DMs that make it up as they need. I had one DM who rolled out the round of combat where the PCs were joining in later so that each side would have wounded if not corpses by the time we got there. My present DM just alluded (this a PvP game, so his post to another player planted a few seeds of doubt in her mind) to the fact that the Black Dragon who has taken over the land might very well have already been defeated while we were being chased by the daemons. And that's the problem there. Sure, other are bound to be more powerful people in the world than the PCs, but then we'd never get jobs and all the truly dangerous foes would have been contracted off to said stronger NPCs. This is an issue for all editions, not just 4th.
Zousha_Omenohu 01-06-08, 09:19 PM	Again, I don't see why this issue is being discussed here in Campaign Design. It seems more like a general statement than one specifically related to campaign design.
elondir 01-07-08, 04:15 PM	I prefer if rules are independent of fluff; it allows our fluff to be completely independent of the latest edition of the rules. My own game world has survived from 2e.
Etarnon 01-07-08, 09:45 PM	Why be ******? Just play whatever you want. Nobody is holding a gun to your head. Over the next year, we'll be playing Spycraft, Traveller, and Last Unicorn Star trek, all dead games. so what? Play what you want. The fear that "You'll never be able to find players for a no longer supported game" is not true in all cases. Not here in western Ohio, at least, not by a long shot.
Illithid Tentacles 01-07-08, 11:20 PM	So... you're upset that WotC is making it easier for people to flesh out thier game worlds enough for it to seem more realistic without having to spend hours working on it?
WeyrleaderZor 01-09-08, 12:36 PM	So... you're upset that WotC is making it easier for people to flesh out thier game worlds enough for it to seem more realistic without having to spend hours working on it? I don't mind that, but what upsets me about this 4th edition change is the heavy "make it flashy and look impressive with big combos (or powers) and huge numbers" influence of the MMORPG genre. This is a table top game, NOT an MMORPG. I also hate the idea that the books will be fewer pages (saw that on Amazon.com) and will cost about $5 more for those fewer pages. I don't like that they're ripping out traditional races (Gnomes aren't "classic" enough for them to bother keeping, but Tieflings, and the Dragonman (whatever it's actually called, I forget at the moment) are?!). And "evil paladins" is announced in such a manner that it's clear they're making the game appeal to the action-only Alien V. Predator type of play. "Give me bad guys to play and let me kill heroes, let me have demon-blood bad-[ahem]s and we'll really be gritty and edgy with the game." That's how one of my players put it when he read it, he's a part-time power gamer (he says that's WHY he plays WOW actually - to do that sort of thing) but he plays the "real D&D" (again, his words) to play a "real role playing game." And their excuses for the Eladrin/Elves thing... They don't even justify it properly, most worlds aren't so "over saturated with subrace choices" as a mainstream option. The ONLY one that comes to mind that IS that way is Forgotten Realms in which there are a dozen or so subraces of the various races in the campaign core book. And just for the record, the author(s)/editor(s) should have tried to be more honest with their justification text. They list "Aerenal elves" and "Valenar elves" in the list of subraces. That's just preying on players that don't know Eberron and don't know that those are two elven NATIONS. It'd be the same thing to say we've got "Canadian humans," "Mexican humans," and "American humans" making it so confusing as to what races dominates the continent of North America. Shame on them for that rather lame attempt to muddle up a rather baseless argument. If they wanted to make a change for the sake of a "cool factor" or to differentiate the "less magical" and "more magical" elven bloodlines into true races that's fine - but just say that. Don't make such a flimsy spurious claim that the relative few subraces (per race that have them) is too confusing. Gamers are not stupid, in fact we tend to be more well read and literate than many people I've met. I can't count the number of times I've seen game shows where people don't know words or facts that are fairly common that I've learned from gaming alone (much less the habit of reading that table-top RPG's tend to encourage); and I've heard a distressing number of people (even when I was in school) say they didn't want to get into RPGs because there was "too much reading" and comments of the sort. Gamers aren't dumb, we're not "overwhelmed" by choices, no matter how silly some of them are and how much "fluff" it puts in the way of business sometimes... New gamers, MAYBE they can make that argument, but the new gamer is more likely to have friends that are not inexperienced to help them and more likely to play something basic to get the gist of things - and there's nothing too complex about the races/subraces to suggest that players can't, haven't, or won't. :) Well, that's my $0.02. ;)
Illithid Tentacles 01-09-08, 07:58 PM	(Snipped for space.) Well, my attitude about it is "Wait until the 4e books actually, technically, exist, read them, THEN pass judgement on thier quality." You could be getting worked up over nothing.