4e: Calling all 4e fans! Review 4e!

[Panda-s1]

So I'm sure at least some of you have been to the Paizo.com messageboards, and know how ever since Paizo announced the Pathfinder RPG it has become a bastion for 4e haters. Now I know it's a losing battle on the message boards, but Paizo also has an online store that allows people to write reviews. Unfortunately there's only a few reviews of each book (most of them on the PHB), and for the most part they suck. They're usually just a sentence or two that doesn't explain much about why they gave it such a low rating (one of the PHB ones is basically "Roleplaying? More like roll-playing! I am so funny.") The worst review of all was for the DMG that simply stated "waste of money".

Seeing this I decided to write a four star review for the PHB, citing that it's a much better system, and the book has a clean layout. I have some reservations, such as the restriction of classes and how clerics lost a bit of their flavor with the lack of domains (which I'll never forgive WOTC for doing ever), but I feel confident in giving it to a new player knowing they'd learn all the basics.

So rpg.net forumgoers, I think the best thing we can do to show our support of 4e is tell people why we like it so much. Not just the Paizo store, but everywhere. Anywhere that we can put our own review, we should put one. Nice articulate ones too, at least four sentences that explain with some detail why we love 4e. At the very least we'll look better than the 4th haters and their inane one sentence, one star reviews.
Edit/Delete Message

[Illiterate Scribe]

So rpg.net forumgoers, I think the best thing we can do to show our support of 4e is tell people why we like it so much. Not just the Paizo store, but everywhere. Anywhere that we can put our own review, we should put one. Nice articulate ones too, at least four sentences that explain with some detail why we love 4e. At the very least we'll look better than the 4th haters and their inane one sentence, one star reviews.



So rpg.net forumgoers, I think the best thing we can do to show our support of 4e is tell people why we like it so much.


So rpg.net forumgoers

If you're going to try to call us into your personal army, at least care enough to edit your copypasta'd warcry. You posted the same thing here. (http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=399280)

[Charity]

I agree Scribe, poor show OP... and ask yourself why do you care what random folk on the internet say about something you've tried and liked?

Anyone whom is sheep enough to not see for themselves whether they like 4e is not worth the effort of pursuading to be Frank.
Also Piazo is absolutely anti 4e, what you are proposing is board invasion and trolling, no thanks, I wouldn't want it to happen here, and whats good for the goose...

[Kurald Galain]

The worst review of all was for the DMG that simply stated "waste of money".
While that is quite a bit too succinct, I happen to agree entirely that the DMG is a waste of money for any moderately experienced GM, because it contains nothing new for those people.

Other than that, you're setting up a false dichotomy: that everybody on Paizo "hates" 4E and that everybody in this forum "loves" it. It might surprise you to learn that there are a substantial number of people who really don't care either way and will happily play 3E, 4E, 2E, 5E or any of the plethora of RPGs that aren't even related to D&D.

A good game session is made by a good group; which system you happen to be using is pretty much irrelevant.

[shadow_archmagi]

A good game session is made by a good group; which system you happen to be using is pretty much irrelevant.

-1e (the game that inspired the original D&D) involves being hit with a brick. Its a terrible system, which is why they had to upgrade.

But otherwise, yeah, system is irrelevant. A good group makes a good system into a great game, and a bad system into a good game.

[clericwithnogod]

Also Piazo is absolutely anti 4e, what you are proposing is board invasion and trolling, no thanks, I wouldn't want it to happen here, and whats good for the goose...

Paizo isn't anti-4e. They're making a product that competes with 4e in the FRPG space. They sell 4e on their site and will be supporting 4e through partner company Necromancer Games. You can read about how some of the Paizo folk view 4e and their relationship with the people from WotC here:

http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/community/gaming/4thEdition/paizoStaffAnd4e

But, the OP's recruitment for board invasion is pretty awful.

[Kurald Galain]

-1e (the game that inspired the original D&D) involves being hit with a brick.

"Nobody is to stone anybody until I blow this whistle. Even, and I want to make this absolutely clear, even if they do say 'Jehovah'".

[LCR]

"Nobody is to stone anybody until I blow this whistle. Even, and I want to make this absolutely clear, even if they do say 'Jehovah'".

It is quite important to have rules for reenacting Monty Python. That's why I am so deeply saddened by the lack of an enchanter in 4e.

[Matthew]

"Nobody is to stone anybody until I blow this whistle. Even, and I want to make this absolutely clear, even if they do say 'Jehovah'".

Heh, heh. "I love the smell of absolute statements in the morning."

Anyway, yeah, let things take their natural course. No need to persuade people to write good reviews about things, in fact that's what is known as soliciting biased reviews.

[nagora]

-1e (the game that inspired the original D&D) involves being hit with a brick. Its a terrible system, which is why they had to upgrade.
1e is the best edition so far. That's why it lasted longer than any other edition without being "upgraded", and when it was the people who tried made a mess of it.

It's not perfect, though. I'll grant you that.

Not quite sure what you mean by the first edition of AD&D inspiring the original D&D, since the original D&D came out first.

[bosssmiley]

GITP is not your personal army in a sledging (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=sledging) attempt on "Pathfinder".
Nor are we your astroturf (fake grassroots) in a campaign of 4th Ed boosterism.

OP blocked. Go shill somewhere else. :smallannoyed:

[Jayabalard]

-1e (the game that inspired the original D&D) involves being hit with a brick. Its a terrible system, which is why they had to upgrade.I still prefer 1ed to anything that was published after it.

[nepphi]

For the love of...

They're saying "-1ed" not 1st ed! As in negative first ed. It's a joke! ARGH XD

[Charity]

Paizo isn't anti-4e. They're making a product that competes with 4e in the FRPG space. They sell 4e on their site and will be supporting 4e through partner company Necromancer Games. You can read about how some of the Paizo folk view 4e and their relationship with the people from WotC here:

http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/community/gaming/4thEdition/paizoStaffAnd4e

But, the OP's recruitment for board invasion is pretty awful.
This confused my poor lil head until I re-red what I wrote

Also Piazo is absolutely anti 4e, what you are proposing is board invasion and trolling, no thanks, I wouldn't want it to happen here, and whats good for the goose...

let me make that

Also if Piazo is absolutely anti 4e, what you are proposing is board invasion and trolling, no thanks, I wouldn't want it to happen here, and whats good for the goose...
That is what I intended, I have never been to Piazo's forums and discussed anything, I have no idea what the consensus is there.
... Oh the importance of dem lil words..

edit


For the love of...

They're saying "-1ed" not 1st ed! As in negative first ed. It's a joke! ARGH XD

Whats even funnier is that Matt was involved, the idea of Matt slating 1e certainly makes me larf.
C'mon lads get a grip eh...

[Matthew]

For the love of...

They're saying "-1ed" not 1st ed! As in negative first ed. It's a joke! ARGH XD

Sorry, are you making jokes about negative first edition? I'll have you know that it was the purest form of Dungeons & Dragons; pure nectar distilled in truth and seasoned with beauty. Everything that came after was (and is) a pale shadow of its glory.



Whats even funnier is that Matt was involved, the idea of Matt slating 1e certainly makes me larf.
C'mon lads get a grip eh...

Quiet you!

[Charity]

Nonsense Matt the root of it all is i D&D

[nepphi]

Of course I'm making jokes about -1e! Because it's nothing at all compared to the pure gold that was edition X.

Mmm, back when DMs could have ACTUAL rocks fall.

[Matthew]

Nonsense Matt the root of it all is i D&D

I think you'll find that you have overlooked Negative Infinity Edition.



Of course I'm making jokes about -1e! Because it's nothing at all compared to the pure gold that was edition X.

Mmm, back when DMs could have ACTUAL rocks fall.

Bah!

[Charity]

That one was just for all those reallife powergamers D&D isn't D&D without hardcore (http://www.acejanitorial.co.uk/images/products/AF200.JPG) roleplay (http://www.dontdosocks.co.uk/admin/imageslogo/upimages/Sudoku%20toilet%20roll2.jpg)

[Scintillatus]

Actually, if you take away the RPG.net copy-and-paste, this is a stellar idea.

It's hardly "trolling" or "board invasion"; what you're doing is using a service for its stated purpose. Instead of circle-jerking about how terrible something is without justification, you honestly and clear-headedly review the product, in the space left for reviewing.

No forum involved, no "trolling"; you're not aiming for a reaction, you're aiming to reduce the trolling. If flaming is superseded by honest reviews, you've done a good thing.

[Matthew]

Actually, if you take away the RPG.net copy-and-paste, this is a stellar idea.

It's hardly "trolling" or "board invasion"; what you're doing is using a service for its stated purpose. Instead of circle-jerking about how terrible something is without justification, you honestly and clear-headedly review the product, in the space left for reviewing.

No forum involved, no "trolling"; you're not aiming for a reaction, you're aiming to reduce the trolling. If flaming is superseded by honest reviews, you've done a good thing.

Except Panda-s1 is not asking for 'honest reviews', he is asking for 'positive reviews' (and in opposition to negative reviews). What he should be doing is contacting Paizo about the quality of the reviews being posted for 4e on their website. At RPGNow they take down reviews that fail to actually review a product and Paizo should do the same.

[wodan46]

http://xkcd.com/386/

enough said

[Charity]

Actually, if you take away the RPG.net copy-and-paste, this is a stellar idea.

It's hardly "trolling" or "board invasion"; what you're doing is using a service for its stated purpose. Instead of circle-jerking about how terrible something is without justification, you honestly and clear-headedly review the product, in the space left for reviewing.

No forum involved, no "trolling"; you're not aiming for a reaction, you're aiming to reduce the trolling. If flaming is superseded by honest reviews, you've done a good thing.

Not really.
All you are doing is changing the review bias from negative to positive, and if negative bias is the flavour of that site then all you are doing is laying troll seeds in their cabbage patch.
I dunno much about Piazo, but I imagine they would rather not have folk sign up just so they can voice contrary opinions to those of the majority and for no other purpose.

That sounds trollish to me... and i should know damn forgot about that Raw.

[Talya]

Damn. It sounds like I should sign up at Paizo's message boards. They're obviously a bright bunch.

[Tengu]

I'm sure few people will mind if you do.

[Talya]

Look at this thread, as an example:

http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderRPG/general/lookedAt4ePathfinderItIs

Reasonable, logical discussion. Very little polarization. Few ad hominem attacks (which abound here, despite rules to the contrary, this place is as civil as the abyss at times), and even the fan-boys on both sides recognize the points the other side is making as valid. Here, if you criticize anything about 4e, twenty people immediately jump up to rabidly defend it, in the process calling into question your intelligence, lineage, and gender-orientation.

That's the only thread I looked at, mind you, so maybe its the exception, but they put us to shame.

[SamTheCleric]

Here, if you criticize anything about 4e, twenty people immediately jump up to rabidly defend it, in the process calling into question your intelligence, lineage, and gender-orientation.

That's the only thread I looked at, mind you, so maybe its the exception, but they put us to shame.

That's a little one sided. The attacks are equal in intensity coming from both sides of the argument. Any Pro-4e thread is quickly infested with attacks (such as you posting the 3rd edition books as your way to "fix" fourth edition) and any Anti-4e thread is quickly infested with attacks (which have gotten some people banned already).

[Scintillatus]

Having looked at the Paizo review section, the OP is actually wrong - there are a few open-minded reviews (***, ****, couple *****s... Not sure if it deserves 5, but still), and a few people using it as a vehicle for their git-off-my-lawn-you-kids whiny rants.

I still disagree with you though Charity, he's not asking us to go "RAARGH 4E rules"; in his own words:


Nice articulate ones too, at least four sentences that explain with some detail why we love 4e. At the very least we'll look better than the 4th haters and their inane one sentence, one star reviews.

Seems less bias and more reason to me. There's a lot of unthinking sentiment around here and other forums, I see no reason why a well-written review would be a bad thing, whether the company encourages bias or not. Otherwise every time we criticise something on the Gleemax boards, we'd be banned for trolling, eh?

[Talya]

Any Pro-4e thread is quickly infested with attacks (such as you posting the 3rd edition books as your way to "fix" fourth edition)


You consider that...an attack???

[SamTheCleric]

You consider that...an attack???

Not to derail the thread at hand, but yes, that was a direct attack at the original poster who was asking about things specific to fourth edition. Your post added nothing to the discussion and even caused people to rally behind you and post similar opinions. We get it, you don't like fourth edition and prefer third edition. That doesn't mean you need to pop into every fourth edition thread talking about various rules and options of that system and say that you're going to just keep playing third edition. That doesnt help at all, nor does it serve any purpose.

Edit: Please note that I am not trying to start a fight with you, Talya. I happen to think most of your posts are quite good and I enjoy reading them.

That said, if you want a review of 4e, I posted one about a week back and you can do a search for "SamTheCleric's look at the 4e books" or something like that to find it.

Edit #2: Here's my review thread: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=82266&highlight=samthecleric

[Talya]

Meh. He asked how to fix 4e. It's faster to just revert to 3.5 than to try to add open multiclassing, vancian spellcasting, the entire 3.5 monster manual, the standard alignment structure, and all the missing classes back into 4e.

[Kurald Galain]

Here, if you criticize anything about 4e, twenty people immediately jump up to rabidly defend it, in the process calling into question your intelligence, lineage, and gender-orientation.

Very true. I'm aware that the WOTC forums are worse, but frankly civilized debate is rare on the GITP forums, mods notwithstanding. Too many people immediately assume that if you don't fully agree with them, you must therefore hold the exact diametrically opposed position, and take this as cause for flaming.

[SamTheCleric]

Meh. He asked how to fix 4e. It's faster to just revert to 3.5 than to try to add open multiclassing, vancian spellcasting, the entire 3.5 monster manual, the standard alignment structure, and all the missing classes back into 4e.

Honestly, if you would've said that instead of simply putting up a picture of the three books, I would've taken it more seriously as you've stated your opinion clearly.

But, I agree... we all need to take a collective deep breath and remember that we're all into the same hobby and do have THAT in common... as well as understanding that the world isn't simply black and white, there can be variations in opinions.

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff of Moddingham: Talya, Sam, that's great. Now that we've come to an understanding, please leave this aside. Dragging external baggage from thread to thread is not appreciated (or allowed).

As for the OP, I think we're going to leave this thread open for now. It's not a call for an attack on another board. It's not asking people to do anything that violates the other site's rules. And, frankly, the flaws of the OP (obvious bias, cross-posted from rpg.net, mischaracterization of the attitudes of Paizo.com and GitP, etc.) are all obvious. So I don't feel like we need to intervene here to protect anyone.

[AKA_Bait]

Very true. I'm aware that the WOTC forums are worse, but frankly civilized debate is rare on the GITP forums, mods notwithstanding. Too many people immediately assume that if you don't fully agree with them, you must therefore hold the exact diametrically opposed position, and take this as cause for flaming.

For the record, I couldn't disagree with you more. Yes, there is a tendecy here to pull the false dillema on people but I've found that it is only in a handful of cases that things get out of hand and directly impolite. Things tend to stay civil here, on their own without mod intervention, more often than many other sites. In the cases where the mods do have to intervene, it seems to settle down pretty much right away also. Frankly, if I felt your characterization of the board were accurate, I would post here a lot less frequently.

Roland, I don't think I've overstepped forum rules or your instructions here but let me know if I have, or if I'm close, and I won't respond to stuff like this again.

[Killersquid]

I won't be doing this. Saying you are upset at the people posting garbage, then say to give positive reviews is hypocritical, not to mention that, as Matt said, this can be fixed easier with Paizo removing reviews that do nothing but troll.

Also, delicious copypasta.

[EvilElitest]

ug, pathetic. I'm sorry, but this is like a propagandist slogan in format
Love 4E or hate it, don't use these methods
from
EE

[Vortling]

Mr. OP. I am severely disappointed in your thread. I had expected a call for reviews from forumers here which would be posted here in this thread to inform playgrounders who haven't had a chance to pick up the books yet (myself included) about 4e. I expected something similar to Sam's review thread and got your very biased idea.:smallyuk: