Slashdot Log In
A Veteran GM's First Impressions of D&D 4th Edition
Posted by
timothy
on Sat Jun 07, 2008 05:30 PM
from the oooh-glossy dept.
from the oooh-glossy dept.
Martin Ralya writes "I spent several hours with the three core D&D 4th Edition books on launch day, and wrote a detailed look at all of them based on my first impressions. Two big takeaways: Yes, the World of Warcraft comparisons are fair (and a good thing), and the way character powers work now will make the game more fun for everyone."
Related Stories
Submission: A Veteran GM's First Impressions of D&D 4e by Anonymous Coward
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
It is great (Score:5, Funny)
Re:It is great (Score:5, Insightful)
Two things I find funny about D&D 4E in comparison to GURPS 4e (my generally-preferred system). Remember when GURPS 4e came out? Everyone whined it was too expensive. Now D&D 4E is over $100 for the PHB/DMG/MM basic set (no pun intended), though of course you can find it online for cheaper. Yet no one seems to be complaining.
On the upside, many of the things that GURPS 4e did right D&D 4E is also doing right. Much improved rules layout and general unification/simplification of "stupid things". I was very much not a fan of d20 3.x for this exact reason; the entire ruleset was vomited into the book with what seemed like little attention to organization. (Remember GURPS 3e sidebars?)
That said, D&D 4E is very much still the quick hack'n'slash ruleset. Of course, it doesn't have to be, but it certainly doesn't have the attention to character personality advantages/disadvantages and all the non-combat skills that GURPS does. But then not much else does, and that's why we all love GURPS, isn't it. ;-)
Parent
Re:It is great (Score:5, Informative)
However, a big part of what I believe is going to push D&D 4e is the D&D Insider Online Tabletop with the voicechat and the rule handling and all that.
We are at a point where tabletopping is ready to evolve, and Steve's reluctance to step in that direction could ultimately doom our beloved GURPS.
I really hope that doesn't happen, but he has a pretty strict rule against anybody else creating online tabletopping software that does combat calculations... yet we really don't see his folks doing it either.
Parent
Re:It is great (Score:4, Interesting)
Maybe I'm mistaken, but I thought that DnD's main appeal was spending time with your friends in person. I really liked it for a couple of years. The reason was that I had friends who were fun to play with, and the funny rituals and habits we had that went along with it.
I've continued to read a little about DnD in the 18 years since I stopped playing. I like to know what's going on with the evolution of the game, but now, my best friends are scattered across the continent, and the thought of playing with my local group of friends is lame.
I like the idea of playing DnD. I just don't have the friends for it anymore. It somehow felt more comfortable to roll a toon on WoW and meet people online to play with, than to head down to the hobby shop on a game night. If I'm going to meet new people in person, I'd like food and alcohol involved.
Parent
Re:It is great (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:It is great (Score:5, Informative)
Not really... the tool they're releasing for D&D isn't an MMO, nor anything like it. It's more like having a digital tabletop that you can draw maps on, but you're still moving around miniatures on it, and the DM still makes the adventure and actually tells a story.
That last bit is what I find to make it completely unlike WoW or any other MMO. The human element of somebody actively running the game you're playing. It is a vastly different experience.
I personally would love to be able to play that way with my friends that are no longer local to me.
Parent
Re:It is great (Score:4, Interesting)
Unfortunately the tools are Windows only. That's me out, and it's also lost sales to any groups that have Mac and Linux users amongst them. Bad move on WotC's part.
Parent
Re:It is great (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:It is great (Score:4, Insightful)
It's a bad move for a number of reasons. The first is the demographic they are targeting. Whilst Windows has a very high share of the market, that's taking into account business use as well as the trends of the overall population. I would say that the young and generally better than averagely educated demographic that make up D&D players is going to have a much greater proportion of Linux and Mac users. Secondly, it is a group activity, so whilst 4 out of 5 potential customers might be Windows users, it is still a big problem if one or two members of a group are not. When you need everyone in a group to be a Windows user, then suddenly that four out of five statistic looks like a serious issue. Thirdly is long term planning. Windows isn't going away in this year, but uptake of rival OS's is rising and this is especially the case in the home market where people can do what they like. Windows will hold on very well in the business world for quite some time, but that's again not the market WotC are after. They really have to think about the future here. Fourthly is the assumption that you make about the cost of porting their product to other OS's. If they had planned for this from the start they could have (a) taken a cross-platform approach (does DirectX 10 really offer that irresistable advantage to an application that moves static 3d figures around a board?) and (b) looked at a more web-based approach to their offering which would be better in any case. If they had set out to create a cross-platform solution they would have found the additional cost was not so great and certainly worth their while in terms of return.
I suspect WotC management were victims of listening to one individual with one way of doing things. It's all too easy to hire someone, even a very senior person, and have them tell you it should be done in way X and not know any better. It's a shame they didn't consult me, eh?
Parent
Re:It is great (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re:It is great (Score:4, Insightful)
Current estimates of overall Windows market share range from 91% to 96%, but that includes a heck of a lot of computers that are not owned by D&D players.
Parent
Re:It is great (Score:5, Interesting)
See, this isn't the 1990s any more. Nowadays, making a Windows-only desktop app limits your userbase even among people who run Windows on their computer at home. Because they aren't always at home. Maybe they want to play D&D on their iPhone, had you thought of that? Or on their Windows Mobile phone, if that's what they prefer. If it was a web app, they could play it on any kind of device that has an internet connection.
Is that worth how much it would cost to port it? Oh, wait, if it was a web app, porting it would cost a whopping $0.00.
That's why developing a Windows-only desktop app is stupid, unless your app actually requires the kind of things that web apps don't do well, like real-time 3D graphics. Which D&D totally doesn't.
Parent
Re:It is great (Score:5, Insightful)
Back in the 3e salad days, there was a new GURPS suppliment released each month (leading some to remark, not entirely inaccurately that GURPS was less a game and more a gaming magazine.) 4th edition saw that brought down to a suppliment a quarter. (And a few PDF suppliments. Not that they don't count, but... they don't count.)
There has not yet been a print release for any new GURPS 4th edition product in the entire year of 2008 so far. The next product in the queue is GURPS Thaumaturgy.
Munchkin is on it's 6th expansion of the -core- rules which does not include all if it's spinoffs (Star Munchkin, Munchkin Bites, Munchkin Cthulu, Munchkin Fu, Super Munchkin, Munchkin Impossible, The Good, The Bad, and the Munchkin, etc.)
I'm not saying that GURPS will be unsupported, but it is Munchkin, not GURPS that pays the bills - GURPS is the labour of love.
Parent
Re:It is great (Score:4, Insightful)
Also, the article spells out the combat-oriented nature of D&D, then the writer pretty much says straight up that he's never encountered non-combat situations. I understand there are players and GMs like that, but those aren't the games that I play. Whatever happened to awarding experience/character points for resolving the situation without pulling out your sword (literal or metaphorical)?
It sounds like D&D becoming even more pidgeon-holed into its niche without incorporating the things other games do better. Please, wizards, play a few Gurps campaigns (at least one of which with a pacifist), read a few palladium books, and incorporate what they do well into your products!
Disclaimer: at least 50% of my games are D&D, and I'm currently DM-ing a D&D game. This isn't coming from someone who hates the system, this is coming from someone who wishes the system weren't all about combat.
Parent
Re:It is great (Score:4, Interesting)
Actually, in 4e there is a mechanical thing that prevents you have flaws. The skill system takes account of your level and you also don't invest points in skills, you just are trained or not. If you're a Level 10 Wizard, you're a better blacksmith than any level 1 villiage blacksmith. There's no way you can't swim, or rope-climb or dance. 4e characters can do just about anything. And the difference between trained and untrained is a on / off thing. Two Level 10 characters who are both trained in "Athletics" are equally perfect in simming, climbing and running. There's no differentiation.
Parent
Re:It is great (Score:4, Interesting)
As I mentioned in other posts, the skill change was done to keep skill management simpler and give the game a more pulp and epic fantasy feel. Conan, Doc Savage, Aragorn, Gandalf, and most experienced characters in, for example, Jack Vance's Dying Earth books had a huge realm of competencies.
The two 10th level characters trained in Athletics are still differentiated by their Dexterity modifier (or whichever modifier affects the Athletics skill check).
Parent
Re:It is great (Score:5, Insightful)
To my mind, the latter is superior to the former from the angle of interesting storytelling.
Parent
Re:It is great (Score:5, Funny)
From this graph [boingboing.net], the price of corn in 2004 peaked at approximately $3.35/bushel. The latest price of corn on there was approximately $4.30/bushel.
From this site [unc.edu], the approximate weight of one bushel of corn is 56 lbs. According to Google [google.ca] that's 25'401 grams.
If you cut all of the kernels off of the cob, boil them, and eat them without salt or any other seasonings, according to this chart [calorie-count.com], it will contain 66 calories per 82 grams.
This means one bushel contains approximately 20'445 calories.
According to this list [nutristrategy.com], a 190 lb person running at 10mph (6 minute mile) will burn 1380 calories.
So, you'll get 14.8 miles worth of calories out of one bushel of corn.
So, in 2004 you'd be paying $0.226 per mile. Today you'd be paying $0.291 per mile. That's an increase of about 22.3%.
An increase from $75 (GURPS 4e, 2004) to $105 (D&D 4e, 2008) is 28.6%.
So given the questionable sources, estimations, etc I've used, I'd say that those numbers are close enough to conclude that the cost of the books has approximately followed the market.
ND
Parent
It's only fun for me when (Score:5, Funny)
Re:It's only fun for me when (Score:5, Funny)
Now *I* put on my robe and wizard hat.
Parent
Not for nothing, but... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Certainly not since WotC bought the rights. By now my son is just about the right age, and he's a nerd like his old man. I think, though, I'm going to wait until fall for th
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
An everyone game? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:An everyone game? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Our DM teaches English and Fantasy Writing in Montana. You just can't have the interaction and creativity online that you do in person though. For those reasons I've never really enjoyed electronic RPGs.
Really?
:)
I find it easier. I've got a bunch of friends who play D&D via IRC (which, for the uninitiated, is a text-only internet chat system similar to instant messaging). In text only, I find it's a lot easier to suspend disbelief and see the characters instead of the people playing them. Imagination is a good thing.
Of course, by online, you may mean in MMORPGs, in which case I'd have to agree with you.
Wait until you've played it (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Wait until you've played it (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Just went to a local Game Day event... (Score:5, Interesting)
We had a great time, especially when we essentially tied down an Ice Dragon and our main Fighter intimidated the Dragon into giving up (even without knowing the Dragon's language!) and we won the encounter without even killing it! It was so much more fun than raiding Onyxia, especially given all the freedom you have in D&D. I bought a book and can't wait to rope all my friends into it.
My impressions (Score:5, Informative)
Something is fishy about this "review" (Score:5, Insightful)
Every new power or creature has an embarassingly bad "Magic: The Gathering" style name, which often has only a slight connection to the game mechanic it represents. Many of the powers have rules that only make sense in combat, and the ones that are designed to be done outside of combat are slapdash.
It's all designed around "game balance" (i.e. balance as a competitive tactics boardgame, not as a cooperative role-playing game) to the point of continual absurdity.
I could go on and on, but there is a lot to hate in 4e, and anyone who gives it an entirely uncritical review is either taking money or ignorant of previous editions.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why is it relevant that the books have 1/4th the content of previous editions? Is volume of content relevant to the playability or enjoyability of a game system?
Does anybody see the irony? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Does anybody see the irony? (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Propoganda much? (Score:4, Informative)
- Spells are called "powers" (goodbye psionics?) and are detailed in the class section; there is no other"magic" area in the book. Great for a person only playing a wizard, ever, but wtf for people making classes. Horrible.
- No confirm criticals, criticals are just max damage on a 20. Goodbye dramatic tension as you bunch over the faded die, figuring out if you got a 7 or 17 on that confirm roll. Goodbye variability. Goodbye fight-ending strike.
- Most rolls 1d20+1/2 character level+other. Wow, that means that high level people will be able to do everything better than 1st level players! Horrible.
- They increased type size AND whitespace in the books. Yep, less content.
- The PHB tells players how to play AND the GM how to gm. No dice.
- They still didn't simplifiy combat. Good god, I thought that was the reason they made another edition.
- No ranks in skills. So much for making a detailed and unique character, huh? Cookie-cutter it is then.
- Attackers roll saves instead of defenders. Stupid. It takes the fate out of your hands and into mine, not to mention I have to look up the bonus a cliff gets to its reflex attack. wtf?
- No strategy. Instead of having to rest and pray (or study) to gain spells back, they have the equivalent of "cooldown" (which I can forgive in an MMO, but makes no real-world sense). Basically your players can use their best spells every fight. No strategy, no need for lower-level spells at all. Why do they even exist once you pass 5th level (or whatever level it is you get fireball now)?
-On that subject, he makes a big deal of how there is only ONE CHART!!!!! LOL for all classes, and says it is simplifying. Then he says you slip to the section on your class to get, essentially, your unique "key" to help you read the chart. GG.
-"There are fewer types of action, standard, move, minor and free." Given that that's about the same as 3.5 core (full-round, standard, move and free), I wonder about this guy's mental health exclaiming its virtues.
-Diagonal movement works the same as lateral movement". I assume this means they moved to hexes? no? Then I guess you can move faster by moving diagonally in about ANY circumstance. Once again, way to break the world.
-Every class has two suggested "builds". What did I say before about telling us how to play? Honestly, at least leave WHO we play up to us. Similarly, each class has a "role". Not that they are customizable or anything. Nope, it's just like "Do you want a DD or a tank?" all over again.
-Retraining is now not only core, but really basic. So in other words, feel free not to put thought into what skills and feats you take, just get the shiniest ones and clean up later.
- His section on the DMG made me just a little bit nauseous. He was all, "saying that people have to cooperate?! Not only is this idea foreign to the other Dungeon Master's Guides, but nobody but those savants at WotC would've thought of it! I thank them for imparting this knowledge into my undeserving hands."
-Treasure parcels. It's where you get 4 magic items and some money. Before I decided treasure by what the villain would have; how foolish! Now I have learned to make sure everyone gets a magical item every encounter!
-MM has 1 monster per page. In other words, say goodbye to all of the lesser-used guys: lantern archons, rasts, all them things my players would always scratch their heads about when they first appeared. Say hello to there being monsters someone with any time could easily memorize all the weak points to, and just plain not enough to make dungeons flarvorfully unique.
-In the MM section he makes deals over things that ALREADY existed, like a picture for each monster.
-Replaced DR with something that means the same. This guy loves it.
- Everything is just to explain to newbies how to play. No advanced mechanics. No strategy. No fun.
I think you can tell about everything you need about this reviewer when
Re:Propoganda much? (Score:5, Informative)
I really don't feel like refuting the rest of your post, but mods, note that this guy has never seen the books himself, has never played with the system, and is knee-jerking at it without knowing what he's talking about.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The fact that the 'veteran DM' only dated back to AD&D2.0 and his review read like it was written by a dim witted cheerleader made it useless to most readers.
I'd debated buying all the 4.0 books to read through and develop an educated opinion....but most of the reviews I've read so far (particularly those written by fanbois) has totally turned me off of thi
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
As for D&D 4th, not to point anyone in the direction of anything illegal, but there might have been a leak of the books you can peruse. Personally, I think it was intentional, as people will be able to read over the books online this way, and then they will be more likely to buy the books (and their friends...) when they see what it's really all about.
I'm no 4th edition
Re:Propoganda much? (Score:5, Insightful)
Spells are called "powers" (goodbye psionics?) and are detailed in the class section; there is no other"magic" area in the book. Great for a person only playing a wizard, ever, but wtf for people making classes. Horrible.
Psionics will be in the PHB2. If you're making your own class, you can either steal the wizard's power list (which is what everybody did in 3rd ed) or make your own. No problems there, that's exactly how it's always been -- the only difference is that the wizard's abilities are listed with him rather than in their own chapter.
- No confirm criticals, criticals are just max damage on a 20. Goodbye dramatic tension as you bunch over the faded die, figuring out if you got a 7 or 17 on that confirm roll. Goodbye variability. Goodbye fight-ending strike.
I'm really sorry if the most exciting part of your game is trying to figure out whether you rolled a 7 or 17. Also, you might be interested to know that this was something that was new in 3rd ed, anyway.
- Most rolls 1d20+1/2 character level+other. Wow, that means that high level people will be able to do everything better than 1st level players! Horrible.
- No ranks in skills. So much for making a detailed and unique character, huh? Cookie-cutter it is then.
High level characters are already capable of doing everything better than low-level characters, if they put their minds to it. Also, proficiency and skill focus still factor into your die rolls, so it'll take a very significant difference in levels before a high-level character who focuses on a skill will be able to easily beat a low-level character who focuses on it. Besides, since when have skill ranks made anybody unique? Unless you were intentionally crippling yourself for roleplaying flavor, every class basically had a few skills that they'd keep maxed out and never put points in any others. Dropping skill ranks and making rolls 1d20 + 1/2 level + other effectively produces the same results and eliminates one of the most tedious parts of writing up the stats for a new character.
- Attackers roll saves instead of defenders. Stupid. It takes the fate out of your hands and into mine, not to mention I have to look up the bonus a cliff gets to its reflex attack. wtf?
All they're doing is making things consistent. In 3rd ed, when you make a melee attack, you roll, add your attack bonus, and if you beat the opponent's AC, you hit them. When you made a magical attack, though, the DM got to roll, add the attack bonus (the monster's save), and compare it to the target AC (your save DC). Now it works exactly the same way for spells, too; the attacker is in control of the "fate" of their attacks.
- No strategy. Instead of having to rest and pray (or study) to gain spells back, they have the equivalent of "cooldown" (which I can forgive in an MMO, but makes no real-world sense). Basically your players can use their best spells every fight. No strategy, no need for lower-level spells at all. Why do they even exist once you pass 5th level (or whatever level it is you get fireball now)?
This is so completely wrong that I won't even bother, other than saying that you need to read the book.
-"There are fewer types of action, standard, move, minor and free." Given that that's about the same as 3.5 core (full-round, standard, move and free), I wonder about this guy's mental health exclaiming its virtues.
3rd ed had full round, standard, move, free, swift, and immediate actions. Further complicating things was the fact that you had to combine your standard and move for a full round, and you could trade your standard down for a move action, but couldn't trade anything down for a swift action. 4e removed the full round action and renam
Parent
It's a collectable miniatures game in book form (Score:4, Interesting)
Alas, it feels like the collectible craze has finally struck the heart of D&D.
At the risk of sounding like I'm shaking my cane at those dratted kids (and maybe I am), this isn't a followup to the classic game, it's a repackaged version of the miniatures game. Look at the monsters ... they're essentially a card. The actual description, background and mythology of the creatures are negligible. The mechanics themselves are designed to be bound to a board, not played out in the imagination.
On some level I guess I can't blame them. As a system linking MMORPGs, miniatures games and card games, it works. They look at the income of Magic the Gathering or WOW and say "why can't we get a piece of that?!" so they design a game that will allow them to leverage the different merchandise against each other. It's not a bad system if that's what you have in mind and I can see it being very successful in that Microsoft sort of way. I know a lot of people who wouldn't touch this system with a 10-foot pole if it didn't have the D & D name on it, but since it does, they probably won't want to play anything else.
What's really sad to me is how hard it is to dig up any information on what can or cannot be created and distributed by players. They seemed to be starting to get the hang of it with opening the d20 system but this feels like a step in the opposite direction. It's becoming about leveraging their games onto players, not about empowering players to create their own games and worlds. I want tools to create stories with, to build worlds with ... as a gamer, I'm not a consumer of fantasy, I'm a creator of fantasy.
4E first impressions (Score:4, Insightful)
What really surprised me and I totally did not expect from anything I'd heard about 4E is how much longer combats took to resolve. A little bit of that was clearly, okay, here are people are familiar with 3E and can play 3E fast and this is new so it takes longer, but... more, the amount of hit points everyone has have gone up a lot, the access to healing that everyone has has gone up a lot, characters can heal while doing other things, damage hasn't gone up a lot, and spells and powers that can really turn the momentum of a fight (e.g., 3E slow vs. creatures with a large number of weak attacks) have pretty much gone away.
The D&D game day module was for pregenerated first level characters. In all earlier editions of the game, combat for first level characters will go pretty damn fast. No one has the hit points to take much of a beating, and maybe your cleric has 3 cure spells to throw around. In 4E, everyone at the table is getting healing surges for hit points back all over the place. No joke, in the middle of one combat I left to get some dinner and decided to have a sit-down meal at a restaurant about 15 minutes away. I got back around an hour and a half later and the same combat was still going and no end was in sight. In previous editions that would never, ever, happen with first level characters.
Maybe I'll come around to thinking that's a good thing, but personally, I enjoyed the way 1-3E played at low levels, and the way they played at mid levels, and the ways in which those were different. (If 4E actually did successfully fix how much the game broke down at high levels, I may be able to make peace with this.)
Re:Is the title correct? (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Is the title correct? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
DM is an acronym for, "Downstairs, Mom!" in reference to one's basement dwelling.
GM is obviously a clerical error, as the "G" is only two spaces over from the "D" on a QWERTY keyboard. It would also be a different dialect.
I kid, I kid. But I don't like the 4th edition rules. They simplify things that are handled transparently by a good DM anyway, and it seems to remove a lot of depth.
There's no reason not to like 'em all (Score:3, Insightful)
Each system has its own flavor of system and setting, and quirks as well. It's possible to like some and hate others, like them all, or be cold on all.
Some may like Rolemaster (and/or SpaceMaster), but others may find its reliance on entire books of tables somewhat daunting. Likewise, Runequest has a very loyal following, although the latest incarnation from Mongoose Publishing just kind of lies there; they focused a little too much on system and not enough on the setting that had been assembled over the
Re:Start Reprinting AD&D v2.0 Please (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Start Reprinting AD&D v2.0 Please (Score:5, Funny)
One of the reasons that I've clung to my original 1E rules over the years (I've got the '70s version and an early '80s reprint of the 3 core books) is that 2E and 3E just seemed to needlessly complicate the hell out of everything. Instead of 15 minutes to fight a party of Orcs, the encounters started taking an hour or more -- OMG skill check, fortitude check, balance check, grapple check, sphincter check. Every single 2E or 3.xE game that I've participated in had house rules to bring combat closer to 1E just so your 3 hour gaming session had some actual progress instead of 2 encounters, loot, nite guys!
Maybe I'm in the minority here, but I really think the rules are a basic framework within which to enjoy making a story with friends. I've never really played D&D with any powergamer or rules lawyer types, and to be honest, I'm thankful.
If you want sim-style combat, and save/skill checks out the ass, make house rules. Just don't overcomplicate the core rulebooks!
To sum up: I'm very happy with almost everything I've seen in the 4E rules so far. They mean that I can get buddies and their wives together on short notice and have a game up and running in an hour. Character development is quite a bit more like CRPGs and WoW, which is fine by me! Most people who'd play at my table already understand spec/talent systems from WoW or wherever -- it just means there's less to explain, and it prompts characters to think about goals from the beginning (I love the destiny bit -- getting players to think about their character as part of an enormous story arc is great!).
I've heard a lot about the loss of Chaotic Good and Lawful Evil, but they're honestly still there -- just called Good and Evil now. Part of me misses the old-style 9 grid alignment diagram, but I definitely won't miss having to explain those two apparent oxymorons to new players. I also *quite* like the new Unaligned (instead of true neutral) alignment -- far less restrictive than true neutral used to be. No druids in PHB1, alas, but I'm sure they'll be in PHB2. All of the starting classes are full-on archetypes, and there are none of what MMO types would call "hybrid classes".
The only things I truly dislike about the 4E rules so far is that it seems impossible to do combat without a minigrid. Again, I'm probably in the minority here, but I've always preferred more storytelling-style combat instead of sim/wargame style. It made gaming sessions move much more quickly. We'll see if I end up house-ruling over that after trying it out. I doubt seriously that I'd ever use the loot parcel rule. Magic items in my games are very few and very far between, mostly because the games are about the story, not lewts + power.
Anyhow, this is the first edition since the original that I think I'll adopt. I like the organization of the books, the playing advice/primers and even the DMing advice.
Parent
Re:Starting playing in 89 does not make a "Veteran (Score:3, Insightful)
( ) 1) winner of the internets
( ) 2) respected and loved
( ) 3) appear intelligent
(X) 4) an ass
(X) 5) an even bigger dork than the OP
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)