4E pros and Cons A review ofRaces and Classes by EE. Please read

[EvilElitest]

This project i'm doing is far to big for the thread i started it on so i'm making a new thread for it

Spoiler

Show

Basically, I bought 4E races and classes as I was open to 4E and I wanted to see where D&D was going. After reading the book I am now going to write Everything that I liked and disliked about the book. I will be updating as long as my internet allows, please comment as much as you want. If anyone knows a person from WOTC who I can contact, please do so I want them to read this
Enjoy, forgive its length, this is a page by page thing, but feel free to just read parts


Alright, this is my absurdly sized rant, it is so big, and I’m going to have to cut it into parts

I am going to critique this book page by page alright (by the by, if anyone from WOTC is reading this, please PM me I want a job as a writer for the new book, trust me you will get your money's worth)


Alright

Cover page, cool but simple, kind of basic, almost like SE books. The pictures are cool, but two out of proportioned for my tastes, the fighter dude is wearing armor that look like WOW and the tiefling's daggers make no sense what so ever
Cool pictures inside though, 2,3,5 are all cool

Alright, now I’m getting really started, p.6 the discussion of the rules, here is where it pisses me of

p. 7 the reasons for 4th edition are discussed, two complaints

1. They admit to flaws in 3.5, and yes we are aware of them. However instead of doing what they sort of did for SE to 3E, they are revamping the system in ways that aren't needed (see complaints in detail later) and changing things aren't even broken.

2. D&D insider? What is that (note, even if I find out later in the book, they should have explained that on the first page)
also, digital is not a good idea, because not enough people can afford access to the computer and their own gaming table, I could understand a digital version (same as table top but for people who just like digital) that goes along side table top but merging them together just makes both pro digital and pro table top, as well as those who lack the people to play with in person and the people who lack the finance, time, or access to computers who will feel left out. This might be addressed later, but I wanted to know from page one
We see advertising for Wizards Presents Worlds and Monsters, so I feel the need to make a disclaimer

As people might have noticed, I love fluff, or as I call it meat (stolen term) over crunch. But I know the importance of crunch and I use it as much as possible to fit the story. The five things I love the most in D&D are
1. Playable Races
2. Classes
3. Worlds, Champion settings ect
4. Monsters
5. Alignments and morality

So this is my element they are preaching to me. I may or may not read the second book depending on my first glance
Anyways in the next paragraph, three notes
1. They are still making this. I really hope this essay reaches some of the writing staff because I really hope they change some of these ideas before it gets realized, because most likely I will no be buying 4E

2. This is only a sample, so I will still be open to the possibility of it being really cool
3. Can't imagine playing D&D anyone other way? Eh?

4. Good luck with the champion
5. they are still play testing, yet again please hire me, I have no qualifications other than a bloated ego and a lot of gaming experience, as well as an uncanny ability of getting what I want (no threats intended)
There is thank a rather nice thank you saying how we have and still are helping them make a better game
Then on p. 7 we have a cool dwarf picture (I know this I subjective) I liked the sketch and the finished product, the red looked nice with the dagger and I found the beard cool, but I’m not artist

I feel the need to make one thing clear at this time, I have always been a bit fan of WOTC, I’ve defending them against most attacks (except wizards being overpowered, even I couldn't argue against that one) and I greatly prefer D&D to other RPGs. I am also a massive fantasy fan, and I love seeing and creating games related to the genre

I'm going to skip the design timeline on pages 8 and 9 as it doesn't really interest me as well as p.10 and most of p. 11 but the final article, where the artist talk, I must say "Good job" as I found most of the art very good quality in these books, I think they have done a very good job
The below section is personal option

Spoiler

Show

Big fan of the art, one two things bother me (and by that is out of all the pictures I’ve seen

1. I wish the weapons and armor looked more realistic, but that is just me
2. Only real complaint, Please, Please, Please, I beg of you, stop showing lewdly clad women, please. This book doesn't do it so much) but really, this has been bugging me for years
I just turned 16 (male) and I know most teens are extremely immature in matters of women (Way too many just go "Hmmmmmmmmmm, Boobs" and leave it at that) but really, I’m just asking you to cut back, your so much better than many other companies. This is just an important point here that I really just want to make a few bullets (I know I’m getting off topic but still)
A- I can't take them seriously. I can accept magic and super human strength (realistically most people go down after one sword wound via infection), I can accept fantasy races, and I don't mind dragons flying ect. But when adventures run around on admittedly dangerous journeys fighting stuff, but when all the elves all run around wearing volleyball girl outfits? And I mean Vollyball dead and alive. Really, please, that just screams "Stab me" as chain-mail bikinis offer no protection and they would just die of exposed. This prevents me from being drawn into the world and looking at the said characters in any sort of realistic manner, it just kills the spirit for me. Considering this is a mid-evil styled game this makes even less sense. I know it sells but please.

B- Sexism, I know that is not intentional, but when all the female look like fashion models and dress showing off as much of their bodies as possible? I just can't judge them as human beings. I just feel like they are soulless fashion models who I can't even start to judge as real characters. If the smartest, bravest and toughest wizard wears an outfit that exposes her stomach and breasts, I just am thinking "So does she sleep around a lot or what? Why is she wearing such a useless outfit?" D&D doesn't have enough female players as it is (this saddens me greatly) and I think WOTC should open out to girls more by treating them equally, not as sex symbols. Exception exist for pictures of girls who are suppose to dress that way (a seducer for example, or a succubus ect) but really

C- Every time a see a male dude wearing armor and a female wearing next to nothing in the mid section, I feel so, out of it, I just feel no connection to the female character and it kills the fantasy mood I have been experiencing. So please, I admit I am american (in the prude sort of way) and that I am rather straight laced in said matters but please stop

D- I am not ashamed of the fact I play D&D, I have no problem brining books like the Players hand book to school, however when my friends (non gaming) are interested in the game an I try to explain it to them, when the see a half naked girl they just assume the worst and no longer take me seriously. I've stopped bringing most books because it embarrasses me.

Other than that, I love WOTCS artwork, makes the books worth the buy

Back on topic (sorry about that, I notice I am taking to much room, so I might cut this up) we move onto the new logo, that feels, well, boring. The old one (with the sword running through the middle) kind of set the mood of epic fantasy, while this one I pretty, well, plain. I don't mind a new logo, but please make a cooler one. They do list the reasons for why the didn't like the old one, but I feel that should motivate them (I really think a new one would be cool) to make one that is cooler, not plainer

Alright, on p. 13 we have the Orcus Design Tenets.
1. Must be Medieval Fantasy Role Playing
Me- Hurray, keep it that way, total agreement
2. Dungeon Master as Story teller
Me- you have my total support there
3. Cooperative Play Experience
Me- Good job, two thumbs up
4. Base Mechanics
It is worth noting in this book they go against this in some ways but in general, I support that whole heartily. After all, I play D&D for a reason, not Gurps or something else
5. Three - Dimensional tactics
Me- I don't use miniatures, but I have problem with them and as long as you can still play without them keep up the good work
6. Options not Restrictions
Me- This is the thing that makes me still open to D&D forth edition, and what I love most about this game, please, keep this rule true
7. Improve the Game
Me- I hope you improve it mechanically but don't fix want wasn't broken
8. Make the Game Easy to Design or, Develop, and Edit
Me- Oh gods, thank you, but keep the essential rules the same
So I am pretty supportive of what they are trying to do
Their email is also on p. 13, I might email them to apply for a job
Alright, I can't take anymore, I have plenty more to say, and I’ll most likely finish EE's essay part two tonight but I need to eat dinner

from
EE

[EvilElitest]

Part 2, the real problem with 4E

Spoiler

Show

P. 11 we have heroes of the world.

In the very first paragraph they make it quite clear that the PCs are the heroes of the world by default. I would like to point out that this seems a lot like WOW, with every single PC being a "hero" simple because they chose a PC class. More later.
The writers move onto talk about the "sweet spot" the levels 4-15 where the characters are very powerful and are having a good time. I would like to point out this really varies from class to class, for the fighter the 'Sweet spot" lasts until the wizard get high enough level to be useful, then he is useless
The Thief doesn't really have a sweet spot
The Druid and Cleric's sweet spot start to kick in around 7-9 ish levels and last forever
The wizard's goes from 8-20 (at best)
The monk doesn't have a sweet spot, ever. I mean ever
you get the idea, i think what WOTC should have focused upon is making all the classes have the same "sweet spot" first before trying to expand it

Then the book gets absurd
In 3E, monsters are modeled in the same way as PCs, so that monsters are following the same rules as the PCs. This opens a lot of options
1. Monsters can be suitable challenges for PC, such as rivals, allies, comrades, enemies, and hunters ect.
2. The PCs get a sense that the monsters is more than a random encounter and a person in its own right, leading to many interesting situation and cool role playing options. The races also feel more "real" and integrated into the world
3. Evil Champions are open, players playing as monsters are an option, and monster cohorts are around, pretty cool. The webomic Goblins is a good example of this
4. The monsters follow the same rules as the PCs, useful for both role-playing and for combat
5. The world makes more sense

D&D now has a chance to change itself from the black and white "You vs. them" sort of persona and go instead to launch itself instead into a geo political realistic fantasy world, with hundreds of different fantasy races struggling for survival and existence. The many different fantastical creatures all of which have their own agenda, many of them fight for good or evil. Others still live in a grey area between the two. The PCs can play as the champions of good, live in an anti-hero gray area, or tyrants for the forces of darkness and evil. The players will be immersed in a world, not a basic came of "See the monster, stab the monster, loot its body, and move on.” I could play WOW for that. WOTC could publish more culture book on the many monsters (thus making lots of money) and increasing the sense of "realism" in the D&D world
So close


And they promptly ruin it

"The PC s are going to be the center stage for the life of the campaign"
That...doesn't make any sense
1. Sounds like a video game, where everything evolves around the PCs. That is an awful idea. If you want the PCs to be engrossed in the world, then you have to make the world realistic and amazing. The PCs will have no interest if some NPCs are being killed if they think the world revolves around them. They will not have any sort of interest in anything really, it will just be kind of "Kill it, get money, kill it, and get money.” Their is no longer any sense that they are inside a fantastical Tolkien like (or Martin like if you enjoy Song of Fire and Ice, Eddings like ect) world, it will be more like they are inside a video game, where everything is about you, and in sort, i think video games will always be able to do that better. Save the Final Fantasy sort of attitude for video games
2. The above sort of world leads to PC hubris, as seen in the comic DM of the Rings, trust me, if the PCs don't care about the world they are in, then why will they ever bother to save it
3. Why do the PCs deserve such power? Think about it, within the game world, most Parties start out level 1, pretty normal guys; all around them there are NPCs that are the same level and higher who do more. The PCs eventually become heroes, epic legends however why? They are good at what they do, they fight, they struggle, they level up, they work together and after all their hard work they become level 15! They are legends, most normal people look up to them in awe, they are praised as heroes, songs are written about them ECT, everybody loves them. And the players earned it
and in 4E they start out amazing. WTF? Why? What have they done to earn all this super power? What
4. It will kill FR. Think about it, FR is crawling with PCs, and in their world they have earned their high-level prestige, wealth and fame. Now every single PC in FR will suddenly be super powered? It doesn't make any sense. FR is already a high magic setting, do this and the world will fall apart
5. It is like the Exalted Champaign settings. However, i don't like Exalted for that reason, so i play D&D. Broaching of territory i gather

"and deserve all the power options and customization features that the system can bear"
no, just no. I don't want to play with a bunch of guys who just destroy everything that comes in their path; i want a bunch of guys who use wit, strength, skill, and intelligence to rise about the normal people, not to a bunch of superheroes. This is why i don't like Mary Sues, they start out super, i want characters to earn their fame and prestige and reap the rewards of their good work
"Monsters and most NPCs are lucky to appear in appear more than once, particularly if they are encountered in combat situations."
So 4E is a video game. That’s it? Dear gods, did Baldur's Gate teach you people nothing?
If the NPCs are flat and emotionless and the monsters just die like fodder, the players are automatically super; this seems more like Resident Evil than anything else. Dear gods don't do this, i can play Diablo for a good video game, and I play D&D for the cool gaming combined with a realistic role-playing setting. 3.5 supported this, you lose nothing by having 4E do so as well

"The new system is not overly concerned with simulating interactions between monsters and non player characters when the PCs are not on stage"
1. Ok, how will my world make any f**king sense then? If everything revolves around six dudes for no good reason, how does my plot even make sense? Why should my player’s care about my world if they aren't told to, what’s to keep them from just rampage the land killing as they please? Thank you for bringing D&D back to the old black and white and boring world that doesn't make sense. Thank you so much
2. Why are we spoiling the PCs so much?
Also, why shouldn't monsters have the same powers as everybody else? It makes the world more uniform and more interesting

/End rant

from
EE
Comments, questions, pointed out mistakes? Please post.

Edited for mistakes

[Reinboom]

This write up sounds to me more like a boundless request, at least at first, for a career at WotC. Although, confidence in your ability is admirable, especially given the age, trying to throw out the request is a distraction to read a work, or rant in this case, and detracts from the quality of it.
Further, you may wish to take more writing, grammar, and journalism classes. Your writing does need work, especially if you are considering serious employment.

Also, a general requirement of Wizards of the Coast is for a person to be eighteen years of age before being hired in any of their creative departments. This is mostly due to the immense amount of intellectual property that would be restrictive against someone who can not legally hold an agreement without a parent or guardian's permission. It would be too distracting and troublesome to call an employee's guardian every other day in order to rely on the employee to properly contain intellectual property.

Your writing could also serve well with more focus, and less stream of conscious. Less claims that lead nowhere could also help. An example would be "I am going to critique this book page by page alright". Although this does not directly state you are going to critique every page, it at least implies it. It also serves as an opening to the reader to guide them into believing this is more of a direct book commentary and critique, which was lightly done. For focus, many parts of your rant I simply could not follow or find a point to. I believe many of your objectives was left out in your stream of conscious and has directly affected the information that you have given.

For the rant itself, you focus in certain areas too much and you provide many arguments without substantial backing or reference. You argue a sexist view against females by posting your views against the artwork, as an example, and this envelopes much of your rant rather than an actual focus on the book itself. Another example is the commentary on World of Warcraft, which, I find to be biased or simply unsupported enough and appears as an argument hinting towards the feeling of social pressure which claims the same, rather than a substantial argument.

Now, on the rant, and a reply to certain points:
On the "lewdly clad" women. This is, unfortunately, popular media and marketing focused art. I do not find it offensive or detracting however since this is not at all what defines the game. Wizards also has a tendency to do extremes with men as well, the women just get more attention due to this being a more male populated game.
I agree in that I prefer more reasonably dressed females characters, but it doesn't bother me enough otherwise to make a point out of it.
Also, country of origin doesn't matter.

For the PCs are the center stage...
Well, they are. I can not think of a group of players I've ever played with that enjoys watching the GM role play with themselves. A GM can set up the backbone however the GM wants, this is true with any RPG. The player characters however, are the players of this campaign world. They play in it. If they are not playing, then they are not playing, and thus, you are truly removing a significant component from the game.
Also, think about the statement for a moment please, and then think about what the game is. The game is a system of mechanics intended to be used by many in order to support the fantasies and enjoyment of all. The main point? Mechanics.
I can not conceive how WotC will, mechanically, force a party to be the center of a campaign world. WotC can not send ninjas into every house who tries to play 4e and force the GM to make the players the center of the GM's campaign. It doesn't work like that.
The reason why Final Fantasy, and similar, are like that is because their "GM" made them that way. SquareEnix being their GM. This is not something that can be controlled by the mechanics alone, however. I, for one, can easily imagine taking a Final Fantasy engine and changing the storyline that SquareEnix, the GM, has set so the players aren't the center of the world. Easily.
Mechanics don't control focus.

Forgotten Realms power will only change, I would imagine, however the stories will stay the same otherwise it wouldn't be the Forgotten Realms and it's the stories that dictate if the who is the focus or not. Not the mechanics.

For power, if power and balance is your concern, get a new GM. Once again, there is nothing stating that players automatically fight "appropriate level" creatures. If there was, then the game wouldn't require a GM to create the game itself. I've heard they're still releasing a dungeon master's guide, after all.

[Starsinger]

Now, on the rant, and a reply to certain points:
On the "lewdly clad" women. This is, unfortunately, popular media and marketing focused art. I do not find it offensive or detracting however since this is not at all what defines the game. Wizards also has a tendency to do extremes with men as well, the women just get more attention due to this being a more male populated game.
I agree in that I prefer more reasonably dressed females characters, but it doesn't bother me enough otherwise to make a point out of it.
Also, country of origin doesn't matter.

I enjoyed your entire post, but this in particular I feel warrants a direct response...

There should be more attractive and scantily clad men in the artwork. A beefcake for every stripper ninja or something...

Also, I like your new avatar.

[Cuddly]

You should really clean up your writing. Until you learn how to use punctuation, EE, I'm not going to read anything from you over a paragraph in length.

I enjoyed your entire post, but this in particular I feel warrants a direct response...

There should be more attractive and scantily clad men in the artwork. A beefcake for every stripper ninja or something...

Also, I like your new avatar.

Are you kidding? Ever single male character is extremely well muscled. Even the mage guy brewing potions in the 3.0 DMG is stacked. The only fat character I've ever seen in a D&D book was the cook in the DMG in front of a sign that says "No Spellcasters".

[Reinboom]

I enjoyed your entire post, but this in particular I feel warrants a direct response...

There should be more attractive and scantily clad men in the artwork. A beefcake for every stripper ninja or something...

Also, I like your new avatar.

I would prefer more pretty-boys myself, but alas, they aren't that popular it seams...
And thank you. Serpentine is a great avatarist.

[Starsinger]

I would prefer more pretty-boys myself, but alas, they aren't that popular it seams...
And thank you. Serpentine is a great avatarist.

Beefcake was just the first word to pop into my head. I'd much rather prefer pretty boys as well.

[GryffonDurime]

I would prefer more pretty-boys myself, but alas, they aren't that popular it seams...
And thank you. Serpentine is a great avatarist.

Have you even looked at Hennet? He's got that nice, exotic kind of look to him. And Gimble's got a kind of scruffy cuteness too.

...On other topics, I really didn't enjoy the heavy hubris of your evaluation, EE. Your tone on a lot of things leads the reader to believe that your view is the superior one, rather than actually stating your view and then building up supporting evidence. Likewise, a more careful pass of editing might be helpful. There are some decent points in there, but no one will notice if they're not well expressed and supported by evidence.

[Prophaniti]

"The new system is not overly concerned with simulating interactions between monsters and non player characters when the PCs are not on stage"

This is the quote from WotC that really caught me. The system may not be concerned with it (ie no written mechanics for how this should proceed, which is fine), but I sure am. Having NPCs and monsters that only act when the PCs show up is a quick way to create a dead, boring world of grinding and endless body-looting just like, as EE says, a video game. I do not want my table-top gaming to become like my computer gaming. I want the world of my table-top game, being limited only by my imagination, to do what my computer games cannot. This includes hosting a vibrant, breathing, changable world where NPCs and monsters have the same ability as you do to change the world as you do. Great Lords and mighty dragons should NOT sit idle merely because the focus of the story is elswhere. You're running heroes, not gods of their own little sandbox, where only they have the power to shape things.

This is not to say that the DM should give a running 'news bulletin', or spend lots of the game session on it, or anything like that. More like, if the party comes upon a valley that is violently contested by rival tribes, then leaves for a year and comes back, they should find that something has actually happened! One side or the other has won out, they made peace, they were both defeated by yet another side, SOMETHING. They should not get there to find them still in exactly the same state, which this quote strongly implies will be the standard take on things.

The PCs may be the center of the story, but they shouldn't be the center of the universe. If interesting things only happen when they show up, if things only change when they show up, it will be as he said, they will lose interest in the world. I know I would.

In this at least, EE, we are in agreement. You really should work on your writing skills, though. It was far too difficult to follow in many places. I don't have a problem with your tone, I already understand you have a big ego, as you said, and take everything you write accordingly. Just work on the mechanics so it's more reader-friendly.

[GryffonDurime]

This is the quote from WotC that really caught me. The system may not be concerned with it (ie no written mechanics for how this should proceed, which is fine), but I sure am.

I think this quote may be causing unneeded problems. It says the system isn't concerned with simulating these interactions. Is 3.5 concerned with simulating interactions when the PCs aren't around? I've never known a DM to roll a Diplomacy check for distant NPCs who are setting up a war that just may catch the players off-guard. He just does it.

I don't read this quote to mean that the system somehow discourages a living world...I can't even imagine, mechanically, how Wizards would accomplish such a feat. This is no different then the theory behind 3.5 or any other RPG for that matter. The system isn't made for the DM to play against himself. It's made for the players to inhabit the world the DM has created.

[Reinboom]

I'm not currently aware of rules for such things in place as it is for 3.5e, at least, not in core.
There really doesn't need to be rules for this either; that's a GM thing, not a mechanics thing.

As I stated before, if the game is working like that, and you don't like it, complain to your GM, not Wizards of the Coast. The game is a tool, a system, not an absolute.

Edit:
Simu'd by GryffonDurime. This statement is in agreement with him.

[Prophaniti]

I think this quote may be causing unneeded problems. It says the system isn't concerned with simulating these interactions. Is 3.5 concerned with simulating interactions when the PCs aren't around? I've never known a DM to roll a Diplomacy check for distant NPCs who are setting up a war that just may catch the players off-guard. He just does it.

I don't read this quote to mean that the system somehow discourages a living world...I can't even imagine, mechanically, how Wizards would accomplish such a feat. This is no different then the theory behind 3.5 or any other RPG for that matter. The system isn't made for the DM to play against himself. It's made for the players to inhabit the world the DM has created.

True. I mostly meant that I disagree with the 'PCs should be the center of everything' attitude it conveys. The PC's are the people we focus on in the grand scheme, but that doesn't mean nothing outside their view matters, which seems like the vibe I'm getting. Also, I don't like the thought track that PCs should be super-powerful either. Of course I want to play a hero, but it sounds like they're building the system specifically to be power-gamed, which I don't like at all.

It may turn out that having a system designed to be power-gamed will balance in the end, as everyone can easily create a mechanically viable character. Thus no one feels like the 'monk' of the party despite putting the most work into their in-depth backstory. I hope this is the case, rather than only serving to widen the gap between role-players and power-gamers. We'll see.
EDIT:

As I stated before, if the game is working like that, and you don't like it, complain to your GM, not Wizards of the Coast. The game is a tool, a system, not an absolute.

Whole-heartedly agreed, I point it out a lot on threads about different game mechanics. It is nice, though, the less change is necassary in a system to get what you want.

[EvilElitest]

This write up sounds to me more like a boundless request, at least at first, for a career at WotC. Although, confidence in your ability is admirable, especially given the age, trying to throw out the request is a distraction to read a work, or rant in this case, and detracts from the quality of it.
Further, you may wish to take more writing, grammar, and journalism classes. Your writing does need work, especially if you are considering serious employment.

Actually, that was a joke, but a if you know any WOTC people show them here please
Your comments are noted, though examples would help

Also, a general requirement of Wizards of the Coast is for a person to be eighteen years of age before being hired in any of their creative departments. This is mostly due to the immense amount of intellectual property that would be restrictive against someone who can not legally hold an agreement without a parent or guardian's permission. It would be too distracting and troublesome to call an employee's guardian every other day in order to rely on the employee to properly contain intellectual property.

Understandable, by the way i'm 16

Your writing could also serve well with more focus, and less stream of conscious. Less claims that lead nowhere could also help. An example would be "I am going to critique this book page by page alright". Although this does not directly state you are going to critique every page, it at least implies it. It also serves as an opening to the reader to guide them into believing this is more of a direct book commentary and critique, which was lightly done. For focus, many parts of your rant I simply could not follow or find a point to. I believe many of your objectives was left out in your stream of conscious and has directly affected the information that you have given.

Alright, i'll try to do that more in the future

For the rant itself, you focus in certain areas too much and you provide many arguments without substantial backing or reference. You argue a sexist view against females by posting your views against the artwork, as an example, and this envelopes much of your rant rather than an actual focus on the book itself. Another example is the commentary on World of Warcraft, which, I find to be biased or simply unsupported enough and appears as an argument hinting towards the feeling of social pressure which claims the same, rather than a substantial argument.

1. The artwork has been bugging me for ages, as this is the first time i've ever seen the artist make a commentary on their work, i thought i should bring it up. As i said, whenever i see a female character in any D&D book, i just can't view them as human beings, the dress is just far to stupid. The males are buff to the point of absurdity i know, but at least they wear clothes. If all the women were amazedly good looking but wore only slightly revealing clothing then i would feel like that person could be a real adventurer.
2. Can you go into a tad bit more detail about the WOW thing?

Now, on the rant, and a reply to certain points:
On the "lewdly clad" women. This is, unfortunately, popular media and marketing focused art. I do not find it offensive or detracting however since this is not at all what defines the game. Wizards also has a tendency to do extremes with men as well, the women just get more attention due to this being a more male populated game.

Popular media is a reason, not an excuse

For the PCs are the center stage...
Well, they are. I can not think of a group of players I've ever played with that enjoys watching the GM role play with themselves. A GM can set up the backbone however the GM wants, this is true with any RPG. The player characters however, are the players of this campaign world. They play in it. If they are not playing, then they are not playing, and thus, you are truly removing a significant component from the game.

But in a good champaign setting the players should feel like they are in a living breathing world, not a world that's sole purpose is to provide loot and exp for them. If the world exists only as a place for the PCs to kill and loot generally mindless monsters and NPCs, it sound remarkable like WOW actually, except without the benefit of having thousands of people to play with.
The PCs will still be important people on the world of course, who wants to be a random dude? But they earns their prestige and honor via hard work, not simple by being created.

In a lot of my games the PCs start out as normal people who have taken to adventuring, thus why they are level 1 X. The wizard who has left her mentor in search of new magics, the Druid who just left her glade for the first time to restore the balance, a mercenary who has taken to the road again, a small time crook who joined up with an adventuring party, they are novices. As they fight and adventure together, the develop team tactics and gain exp (aka, they become better wizards, fighters ect). Their power increases, and they fight bigger monsters and do more epic deeds. Eventually the common people praise them as heros and they are powerful enough to take truly powerful evil creatures. And when they all die because forgot they were carrying a keg of gun powder while charging a red dragon (true story) at level 17-19 they will be remembered throughout the land an the player's new characters will hear of their deeds. And the players will smile and wipe cheese off their faces as they reflect they earned this (well, except for the fighter who felt underpowered and never got most of the glory but after that i nerfed wizards but you get the idea)

Also, think about the statement for a moment please, and then think about what the game is. The game is a system of mechanics intended to be used by many in order to support the fantasies and enjoyment of all. The main point? Mechanics.

D&D is a role playing game. It is a game of fantasy and glory, of epic glory an fantastical joineries, where you play as brave adventures in a fantastical land
In contrast, Diablo is a game where you have magic, and you kill a lot of monsters. They die, you kill bigger ones. You get exp and loot the monster's bodies, then kill some more. See where i'm going with this?

I can not conceive how WotC will, mechanically, force a party to be the center of a campaign world. WotC can not send ninjas into every house who tries to play 4e and force the GM to make the players the center of the GM's campaign. It doesn't work like that.

It is stated in the book that the players will be more powerful than NPCs from the Get Go and that is the general theme as stated by WOTC. Also, even if WOTC didn't send ninjas (they can but i have only three against their dozen) if the new focus of the game is just PCs killing lots of monsters, looting them, killing more ect and they make no supplements or focus upon roleplaying ect, then the people like me who love that sort of thing will not longer be the focus of the game.

The reason why Final Fantasy, and similar, are like that is because their "GM" made them that way. SquareEnix being their GM. This is not something that can be controlled by the mechanics alone, however. I, for one, can easily imagine taking a Final Fantasy engine and changing the storyline that SquareEnix, the GM, has set so the players aren't the center of the world. Easily.

But WOTC has made it clear that both crunch and fluff, hell the game itself is focused upon the players as the center of the world
Also final fantasy with a realistic world would be awsome

Forgotten Realms power will only change, I would imagine, however the stories will stay the same otherwise it wouldn't be the Forgotten Realms and it's the stories that dictate if the who is the focus or not. Not the mechanics.

Wait think this through
In FR there are maybe a few thousand "PCs" or "adventures" who travel around the world on adventures. Now the NPC follow the same rules as the PCs so a Level 12 wizard who lives in a tower (NPC) and a parties' level 12 wizard can be about equal (varies but you get the idea). Suddenly, following said change, all of the "PCs" in the world will double in power, for not logically explained reason. Now FR has thousands of PCs all running around who are more powerful than everybody else, i simple doesn't make sense for a coherent world

For power, if power and balance is your concern, get a new GM. Once again, there is nothing stating that players automatically fight "appropriate level" creatures. If there was, then the game wouldn't require a GM to create the game itself. I've heard they're still releasing a dungeon master's guide, after all.

I am the DM, that isn't the issue here. Also, viewing the monsters (even the more intelligent ones like Goblins) as things to kill and loot for gold and exp is remarkable video game like

..On other topics, I really didn't enjoy the heavy hubris of your evaluation, EE. Your tone on a lot of things leads the reader to believe that your view is the superior one, rather than actually stating your view and then building up supporting evidence. Likewise, a more careful pass of editing might be helpful. There are some decent points in there, but no one will notice if they're not well expressed and supported by evidence.

I call foul here, double standard

You accuse me of hubris (i deny nothing) but you
1. Don't give examples
2. Don't bother stating examples
3. Don't respond to points
The editing thing is a good point however
Just to point something out though, regardless of the fact that i am an insane egomaniac, that doesn't change the points of the essay


Oh Prophanti, you are a good person I agree with you totally

I think this quote may be causing unneeded problems. It says the system isn't concerned with simulating these interactions. Is 3.5 concerned with simulating interactions when the PCs aren't around? I've never known a DM to roll a Diplomacy check for distant NPCs who are setting up a war that just may catch the players off-guard. He just does it

One time the PCs passed by a wizard who was creating a new material (mithral). The PCs gave him a book that helped them then left. A year later they came back to the tower. Eairler i rolled to see how well the wizard/artifacter was able to work with, sell, and produce the mithril. It turned out he was able to equip a private army and had taken over a good deal of land. Had the PCs not returned when they did, they would have heard about his conquests later
Now i'm going to work on part three, be back soon, thank you for the comments
from
EE

[Talya]

As a woman in her thirties, let me just say, I am all in favor of more attractive pictures of barely clad adventurers, of either sex.

Thank you.

[EvilElitest]

As a woman in her thirties, let me just say, I am all in favor of more attractive pictures of barely clad adventurers, of either sex.

Thank you.

why might i ask.

Or maybe i'm better off not knowing
from
EE

[GryffonDurime]

I call foul here, double standard

Not so much, I think. I'm not the one creating an aggressive assertion here. I was merely pointing out how the format of your argument could have been improved, not making a claim for or against the system which you are describing; the sole exception to this being when I tackled the PCs-at-center-stage issue, when I did discuss examples and analyze.

You accuse me of hubris (i deny nothing) but you
1. Don't give examples

Covered above, but I'll tackle it later as well.

2. Don't bother stating examples

Was this intentional, or do you draw some distinction between them that I don't?

3. Don't respond to points

I wasn't intending to respond to specific points, save of course for the specific point I responded to. I was responding to your analysis as a whole. Ergo, I don't see why this is even an issue.

Just to point something out though, regardless of the fact that i am an insane egomaniac, that doesn't change the points of the essay

But it does, I'm afraid. It colors so much of your argument as being centered solely on yourself and how you perceive that the game should be whilst you make broad proclamations that would effect everyone based solely on your desires. Therefore, ego not only changes your points, but defines them.

If you'd like examples, then there will be examples:

also, digital is not a good idea, because not enough people can afford access to the computer and their own gaming table

Unfounded assertion, what are you basing this on? Note the phrasing here, indicative of the main problem in your analysis: you state things as unequivocal without providing any kind of substantiation. Hedging though it may be, this statement would have been considerably more acceptable with only the qualifier "I don't think that there are enough people who can afford..." because you've provided up with no reason to take it as more than your opinion.

They are still making this. I really hope this essay reaches some of the writing staff because i really hope they change some of these ideas before it gets realized, because most likely i will no be buying 4E

Joke or not, these kind of statements are pretty much an instant turn-off to anyone looking through your analysis, throwing questionable weight to your intentions.

B- Sexism, i know that is not intentional, but when all the female look like fashion models and dress showing off as much of their bodies as possible? I just can't judge them as human beings

Shameless joke alert: how many of them are supposed to be human? We've got a whole gambit of beings to be, maybe they were working at being some other, non-human being.

"and deserve all the power optons and customization features that the system can bear"
no, just no. I don't want to play with a bunch of guys who just destroy everything that comes in their path, i want a bunch of guys who use wit, strength, skill and intelligence to rise about the normal people, not to a bunch of superheros.

Again, I question the reading of the intent of the material here, if your quote is indeed apt: "power options" does not imply any kind of superheroesque overpowerdness to me. Customization features doesn't mean overpowered. It means choices. "Power options" is especially vague when you consider that all classes have maneuver-style options called powers: the sneaky skills of a rogue, the strong fighting styles of a warrior...I fail to see how your assertion is grounded in the material as presented.

"Monsters and most NPCs are lucky to appear in appear more than once, particularly if they are encountered in combat situations."
So 4E is a video game. Thats it? Dear gods, did Baldur's Gate teach you people nothing?
If the NPCs are flat and emotionless and the monsters just die like fodder, the players are automatically super, this seems more like Resident Evil than anything else

Again, here it is, you seem to be a fan of the black-or-white fallacy. Either roleplaying, or rollplaying; power or story. The material offers only the suggestion that battle will be, by default, brutal. You assert, in return, that this makes it a video game. As a question, how many times do you fight any given orc that waylays you on the side of the road? How often do you fight any one specific character, for that matter? Generally, once: they're either dead, diplomacized, or otherwise dispatched. It's rather illogical to keep fighting something after you've finished battle: you're obviously in combat for a specific reason, most likely because all other avenues of discourse have failed you. I again fail to see how you can assert, from the evidence provided, that this intent is anything new...because it isn't.


I could continue on in this manner, but I don't particularly care to. Please, don't feel that this critique is directed against you in anyway; my intent is only to point out areas of your analysis that could be strengthened. I wouldn't be investing this much time if I didn't feel that you had some valid points and concerns in there that could be better served by a more supported system of argument. Keep up the effort, it's quite impressive.

[EvilElitest]

Alright part three, i took the comments into consideration, but sadly nobody gave any example on what they wanted to see, just semi vague things about what annoyed me (except for sweet rain) so i'll just plow on and not get side tracked

Part 3, return of the EE and his massive inflated ego

Right after a massive rant we are now

..... still on page 11, ok
Well then, here we go
The writer goes on to talk about power sources. here i am in agreement with them when he says that they haven't payed as much attention to them as the should have, and i am glad they are doing so now. By the by, power sources are things like "Clerics draw their magic from the gods, while Druids pull their magic from the raw power of nature, differences between arcane divine and pionic magic ect) and it is about time WOTC made those things clears. WOTC intends to
A) Make the differences between Arcane and Divine (and the different types of each) very clear).
B) Pions no longer will just have a different version of wizard spell, they will now have their unique powers AND casting system (the latter is already true but more so). As a psi fan, this is good
C) New types of magic, more unique casters like Shadow-casters or binders (I don't know what will happen to them by the way) and classes like Wu jen or hexblades might have a different type of magic/casting system.
things is hope for and seem likely
1. ToB's classes have their own magics
2. Varients arcane and divine casters still exists
So generally this is a good thing (my positive posts are a lot shorter)
There is a cool halfling picture with a weird sword
And then it is revealed to use that the Star Wars Roleplaying game influenced D&D a lot (i've never played SW games so this came as a shock to me). Some fun facts about both systems, none important enough to include here, and then this quote
"... First test of 4th Edition: to se how many of its core concepts could be adapted into a role-playing game of different stripes"
I will return to this later
Right, well so much for p.11-12. we non move onto the the important stuff, the races
P.13, Choosing the iconic races
"one of the long unchallenged assumptions of the Dungeons and Dragons games is that the world is populated by a variety of different fantasy races-elves, dwarves, halflings, and so on. Naturally, one of the first things we examined for the new edition was the purpose and mechanic of character race. What were character races doing for our game.? were we creating compelling stories with our races? What more could we do to make our vision for some of the more familiar fantasy races uniquely our own? And finally, what races should we include in the game"
now i took this with a grain of salt. I can understand why they want to look this over, but i think this goes back to "Don't fix what wasn't broken". 3.5 had a multitude of races, the "Core races" the sub races, the massive number of monsters, the added races in the "Races" series, and the champion specific races. They should be good race wise, i don't thin anyone would be crying if they didn't change the races at all. But their choice, however this caught me eye.
"What more could we do to make our races uniquely our own"?
When i first read this i thought they were adding no new races and instead focusing on developing the already existing culture of their races, which would be cool, them building off what they already stated in the "races" books, going more into races we know little off (goblins for example) and making their world more diverse (I was wrong in fact, but that comes later).
Then it gets weird.
"We decided very early in the process that we wanted character race to play a more important role in describing your character."
It does. In every game i've been in in my six years of gaming and at current running six different game in the same world, race has always played a big part in the character's personality. I never seen it not play a major role in your character? Unless they are speaking from a mechanical view point, in which race is not as important but WOTC wouldn't be so shallow would they?
"Your race pick bestowed a whole collection of static, unchanging benefits at 1st level"
well yeah, that is because it makes sense, a dwarf can see in the dark, has high con, high strength, low charisma, stone sense ect. How can a dude become "More dwarven" Racial levels make sense for some races but how can i become "More human"? It just doesn't add up.
"(many of which were useless clutter on your character sheet"
Not really, i'm sorry WOTC but the only cluttered racial ability that i can recall was the gnomes "speak with underground animals" ability that i never used but most racial traits are the same.
"A 20th level dwarf had the exact same amount of facial characteristics as a 1st level dwarf"
yet again, that is because it makes sense. Lets use an example

Harold Thunder-beard is a a level 20 dwarf cleric. He became so powerful through the blessing of his god and through years of adventuring. He worked hard to become the cleric that he is now, and is honored as a high priest
Bob is a level 1 dwarf cleric, he has just started his journey to fame and prestige. Harold is far greater than him in clerical power, due to years of experience. However, he isn't racially greater than him, they are the same race. Why would a more powerful cleric be racially greater, it doesn't make any sense

WOTC's "New" system, and by new i mean i saw one exactly the same in a long dead Champaign setting (Dawnforge, before you ask, but it might be a chance) is that all the races gain racial traits as they level up
edit-actually, Dawnforge is similar but different, sorry about that
Basically, you choose you race (Dwarf) and get one or two racial abilities (medium sized, strength bonus ect) then you can choose racial abilities in the same way classes choose feats


Now while i am wary of this system, i've used it myself and it does in fact work. I just wish it was an option, now absolute.
In my game, every different racial dwarf is a different race, because when a race has different powers (aka, one dwarf choose the racial feat "Turn into a sheep" while another chose "light thing on fire" they are essentially a different race. So if i ever use 4E, i'll just make every possible racial combination and make them all different races.
the racial system is really up to personal choice
Then WOTC wanted to choose the new iconic races. It turns out they have 135 PC races in rule books alone. That is not counting monsters with level adjustment and dragon magazine.
here is the thing, Richard Bake acts like this is surprising. As any one who has over seven non RAW books knows, there are tons of PC races. My word has at current 500 i think. The fact that he is startled make me wonder how organized they are in WOTC, they really should have kept their facts straight (though it does explain a lot)
He then talks about what races should be iconic. Hard choice, i sympathize with him (no sarcasm there). But i am very annoyed that they want some races to "Quietly disappear, bad form that"
Apparently they went through every single race in the game, i think they should publish a series of book one the lesser races describing them in more detail, almost like the monster manual for PC races, they could make a good deal of money. Now i won't say more because it is covered in later chapters

Oh, i notice i cover very little ground so my new years resolution is to say less cover more topics
from
EE

[Talya]

why might i ask.

Or maybe i'm better off not knowing
from
EE

Boris Vallejo, the Hildebrandts, Keith Parkinson (R.I.P.), you name a great fantasy artist, they have a wonderful appreciation for the sexuality inherent in the human form. So do I, even though I'm not much an artist.

[EvilElitest]

Boris Vallejo, the Hildebrandts, Keith Parkinson (R.I.P.), you name a great fantasy artist, they have a wonderful appreciation for the sexuality inherent in the human form. So do I, even though I'm not much an artist.

how... ancient greek of you.

I prefer outfits that make sense
from
EE

[Mojo_Rat]

One thing id like to coment on is the bit about Pc's and them being the Heroes of the world. first off Why is this a bad Idea? Players and characters should always be Center stage or the Heroes (or villains) of their own story. It also was not invented as a concept by WoW.

Alot of people who read about 4rth edition seem to be confusing modern game design concepts with references to Wow or MMORPG in general.

However the best example of the Pc's as heroes or villains concept is probably the various incarnations of the Star wars game. (at least the d20 versions) Which have all had the seperation of heroic and non heroic characters.

[Tren]

I think Mojo Rat hit it on the head, the PC's should aways be the stars of their own story. For the default setting of 4E, that just happens to also make them the stars of the world, the "points of light". That's not a fault of the mechanics as much as the flavor of the new core setting (though I happen to like that myself). Forgotten Realms and other settings will still exist with their high-powered high-profile characters in place and the game world will only revolve around the PC's as much as the DM chooses to make it so.

[Swordguy]

I prefer outfits that make sense
from
EE

What? Like wearing a noose around one's neck, wearing a garment that deforms ribs, or wearing shoes that deform the arches of the feet? What about full-body garments that the wearer can barely see out of? Do those make sense to you?

Clothing is a function of culture. The in-game culture clearly allows for such garments to exist (unlike in some modern countries), so you have no valid argument there.

And I'm with Talya. Sexuality is nothing to be ashamed or embarrassed about, in any media. If you can't deal with that, than I feel sorry for you. If you don't want it in your games, fine, but be aware that kvetching about it isn't EVER going to make a difference - sex sells. Always has, always will. My fight direction business flyers are covered in pics of my wife fighting in corsets and things - and it gets sales. Seriously, our contracts per month went up 40% and have stayed constant at that level after we redesigned the flyers that way. If you ever start running a business yourself, you'll find that you aren't in a position to complain about such things.

And for the love of god, will you PLEASE start running your posts through MS Word and its attendant grammar check function?

[Ozymandias]

You really need to clean up your prose. My hypercritical meter registered a few hits ("ect" was the most egregious but things like 'who' versus 'whom' bother me more than they have any right to), but far more prevalent and pertinent are the myriad run-on sentences, use of commas as a replacement for periods, lack of proper capitalization, abrasive formatting, et al, which make your writing very difficult to read.

Apropos your points, I disagree with some of them, although I admit I've not read the item in question (or all of your essay; I couldn't slog through it).

E.g. one of your statements on chain-mail bikinis and similar:

B- Sexism, i know that is not intentional, but when all the female look like fashion models and dress showing off as much of their bodies as possible? I just can't judge them as human beings. I just feel like they are soulless fashion models who i can't even start to judge as real characters. If the smartest, bravest and toughest wizard wears an outfit that exposes her stomach and breasts, i just am thinking "So does she sleep around a lot or what? Why is she wearing such a useless outfit?"

To be honest, that's largely your fault. If you think of attractive, suggestively clad women as automatically being promiscuous sex objects, it's because you're a shallow person. Some of media today tries to demean physical beauty
by portraying characters with it as shallow, superficial, promiscuous etc, but it's really a neutral (on a moral or ethical scale) trait, and the aesthetics would contend that it's better to demonstrate beauty (via hot chicks with little clothing) than to cloister it away. I mean, yes it's unrealistic, but DnD is so unrealistic anyway that it's sort of a petty and arbitrary thing to get upset over.

In summation, I think you need to loosen up, man. You can say that you'd prefer that the women in the book wore more clothes, but I'd hesitate before accusing people of sexism because of your own stereotypes.

[horseboy]

I enjoyed your entire post, but this in particular I feel warrants a direct response...

There should be more attractive and scantily clad men in the artwork. A beefcake for every stripper ninja or something...

Also, I like your new avatar.

Like that guy getting sodomized by that tree in the 2nd edition MM? Vallejo for the wig!

[Crow]

While EE's writing leaves much to be desired, I am only going to jump in on one portion.

I would also like to see less "skin" on the women. Mind you, I love the female body (I mean really, really love it...and well, just women in general), but when every woman looks like she is headed to rocky horror, it just detracts from the mood in my opinion. If she is a cunning infiltrator (Rogue) or a sultry and dangerous tavern singer (Bard) it's all good. But if she is getting ready to delve into an ancient tomb filled to the brim with the living dead, I'd prefer to see a little more coverage.

Also, I have known some rough women in my time. Real-life "adventurers" who you would like to have backing you up in a bar brawl. A good deal of them were not superstar knockouts like many of the women characters in WotC's latest artwork. I don't feel that every adventuring female should look like she's on holiday after shooting her latest film. As much as Mialee was derided in 3.5 for her appearance, I found her to be rather refreshing (and admittedly, not very attractive... A wizard, must have dumped her charisma stat). I am fine with beautiful women, but a woman doesn't need to look like a plastic hollywood doll to be interesting.

Also, I would like to see some more realistic representations of the male body as well. As much as I love the way Krusk displays his rippling pectorals, I can't help but think of all the bull**** "fitness" magazines I see on the newstand. This, and only this, is the ideal man. Buy my magazine and supplements. Purchase my drug to enhance your throbbing manhood. Do my "real man's" workout or you are doomed to be weak, helpless, and invisible to women until the end of your days. Let's see some art that shows the male athlete as he really is (and those who dedicate their lives to combat are certainly athletes, make no mistake). Popular culture has driven itself so far from the "Greek Ideal" that it is sick.

[Draz74]

Now, while I am wary of this system, I've used it myself and it does in fact work. I just wish it was an option, not absolute.

Fixed up your typing so people could tell what I was responding to ...

I think in later development of 4e, they did decide to make racial features after 1st level optional, just like you're asking for. Read the second Design and Development article they ever put out for 4th Edition. It goes through the history of their thoughts, and how they made this very change.

I do support your desire for more modestly dressed artwork, though. For one thing, I agree it's embarrassing to try to introduce anyone to the hobby when they will draw conclusions about the hobby based on such artwork. Not very professional. For another thing, as far as the "D&D isn't realistic anyway" argument ... I don't see why "it's broken, so let's break it more" is a good idea. I see fantasy heroes as more heroic when they have to actually deal with the ordeals of daily medieval life (at least in the artwork, if not at the game table), and an adventurer that puts their appearance ahead of their survival should be an unusual statement, not the norm.

[shadowdemon_lord]

Well, this thread seems to have derailed into correcting EE"s grammar and talking about the portrayal of women (and men) in the WotC books, as this is a topic I'm fairly well educated in, I think I'll throw in my two copper pieces. I'd like to see less ussage of the ideal hollywood body period. Not every guy has to look like they could compete in the Worlds Strongest Man competition, not every girl has to look like she belongs in the top ten percent of what's humanly possible. Yes I know why it's done, it sells. People love eye candy, and people tend to be extremely oblivious when it comes to realizing the effects of this hyper exposure to extremes on themselves and others. This combined with general lack of media literacy and the fact that most people don't seem to know what an eating disorder looks like on the surface or how to deal with one makes this hyper exposure to extremes an extremely destructive force. WotC artwork is just one example of the almost invisible meme that permeates our culture that all girls should have a waist size zero and that all guys should be strong and pretty, which is generated almost solely by the media.

[Swordguy]

WotC artwork is just one example of the almost invisible meme that permeates our culture that all girls should have a waist size zero and that all guys should be strong and pretty, which is generated almost solely by the media.

Out of curiosity, would it be a BAD thing for all people to look like that?

I'm not saying starve themselves or anything, but everyone be required to honestly work as hard as they can toward that ideal image, and let the ones that can't make it through genetics or whatever reason die off as they can't find mates?

It's an ideal because its hardwired into people to like certain body types - which the media capitalizes upon in order to sell product. You've got the cart before the horse here. The media doesn't create that image - they just exploit it. After all, which figure in this pic is more attractive?

Spoiler

Show

If you said the one on the right - there's something wrong with you, just to be clear.

Side note: we're not correcting his grammar. We're just saying it sucks, and that it needs to improve if he wants people to be able to read and honestly comment on his posts.

Side note the second: I speak from personal experience in this: eating disorders are, in my experience as a counselor at a local college back in the late 90s, 9 times out of 10 a load of crap. Show some damn self-discipline, exercise, and eat less, and you won't get fat. If you ARE fat, eat less and exercise even more, and the weight will go away. People saying that "they can't help it" are, as noted, 9/10 times simply playing the part of the helpless victim of circumstances that are beyond their control. It's crap. Getting rear-ended in an auto is beyond your control. Being in a plane crash is beyond your control. Having my leg shattered by a land mine was beyond my control. How much food somebody shoves in their mouth is NOT beyond their control. Oh, and that 10th time I'm wrong? The world is overpopulated anyhow.

[Emperor Demonking]

Not every guy has to look like they could compete in the Worlds Strongest Man competition, not every girl has to look like she belongs in the top ten percent of what's humanly possible.

They don't, all the world's strongest men look fat.

[Witch]

Out of curiosity, would it be a BAD thing for all people to look like that?

I'm not saying starve themselves or anything, but everyone be required to honestly work as hard as they can toward that ideal image, and let the ones that can't make it through genetics or whatever reason die off as they can't find mates?

They call this Social Darwinism. Apparently, it's had some rather rough effects in the first half of the twentieth century, and got dropped as an ideal.

It's an ideal because its hardwired into people to like certain body types - which the media capitalizes upon in order to sell product. You've got the cart before the horse here. The media doesn't create that image - they just exploit it. After all, which figure in this pic is more attractive?

Spoiler

Show

If you said the one on the right - there's something wrong with you, just to be clear.

Have you ever heard of Peter Paul Rubens? The Renaissance artist that painted beautiful women, which were, apparently, not as skinny as your ideal? I'll agree that huge women may be ugly, but that doesn't mean everyone needs to be tiny, and that all cultures have considered being a bit less skinny as a bad thing.

Side note the second: I speak from personal experience in this: eating disorders are, in my experience as a counselor at a local college back in the late 90s, 9 times out of 10 a load of crap. Show some damn self-discipline, exercise, and eat less, and you won't get fat. If you ARE fat, eat less and exercise even more, and the weight will go away. People saying that "they can't help it" are, as noted, 9/10 times simply playing the part of the helpless victim of circumstances that are beyond their control. It's crap. Getting rear-ended in an auto is beyond your control. Being in a plane crash is beyond your control. Having my leg shattered by a land mine was beyond my control. How much food somebody shoves in their mouth is NOT beyond their control. Oh, and that 10th time I'm wrong? The world is overpopulated anyhow.

You have a good point about the 9/10, but not about #10. Abandoning someone because they have an illness is horridly immoral. It'd be like saying "Cancer? Oh, sorry. The world is overpopulated anyway."