The people who dislike both 3e and 4e would probably be happier with a rules-light system, period — I'm not sure if there's a good fantasy system like that right now, but several have been invented over the years. Hell, try Amber Diceless.

The people who like 3e and don't like 4e (like me) want a fairly rules-heavy system, but want such a system for OUTSIDE OF COMBAT.

4e made the decision to go very very rules-heavy in combat and very very rules-light outside combat. This satisifies only a very specific and relatively unusual type of player and GM.

Most players who like it rules-heavy like it rules-heavy both in and out of combat, and most who like it rules-light like it rules-light both in and out of combat. This neither satisfies the role-players leaning towards freeform *nor* the role-players leaning towards highly structured.

Incidentally, if I want 'how to run a game' for a beginner GM, 'D&D; for Dummies' did a rather good job at it.

I’m not bashing D&D; as a system there, I still enjoy it more than any of the other RPG systems I’ve tried [and there’s been quite a few].

I just find that the more they try to make combat rules for every situation, so that it’s always mechanically sound, predictable, “fair”, “balanced”, etc. the more those rules dominate the system as a whole, and the player perspective on the game as a whole.

When I DMed in 1st and 2nd ed, the rules were basically “this is your chance of hitting, from how far away, and this how much damage you do.” When there were questions about whether the players could take a parting shot at a fleeing foe, I made a decision! If there was a rules lawyer there, well, there weren’t any applicable, so he had to suck it up.

When playing 3rd ed, we found that when that same critter fled, we got into long debates about the listed mechanics for Attacks of Opportunity, weapon reaches, whether flanking bonus kicked in when the critter ran between people, ad nauseum. Rule lawyer’s heaven.

If I was really looking for a tabletop combat game, rather than a role-playing game, I’d stick with warhammer.

Pfft.

The 3.0 PHB starts with the character sheet and gets technical right away; this is the kind of design aimed at experienced players. The ‘what is D&D;’ section on page 6 is less than a quarter of a page, is practically invisible and totally inadequate.

The 4E book is obviously designed to teach what a roleplaying game is, and I believe the first chapter does so very well. The beginning chapter is legitimately an introduction chapter. And, the DMG is legitimately a guide to dungeon mastering.

Just look at the difference in the size of the type! Just look at the difference in layout!

-roddyriot (on WoTC’s forum)
-Pierson Lowgal (on ENWorld)

I don’t think the core PHB is meant to introduce new players to the game, but at least at retail, it’s NEVER been meant for that.

I think we may need to reserve judgment on WoTC’s new player acquisition strategy until we see what the wofrthcoming new Basic game looks like. The box set is what we always hand to new players and/or parents who want to know what D&D; is about, never the PHB.

You need ot spend over $100 to get the core rules,a nd that’s not an intro buy-in. Assuming the basic set comes in at $35 or so complete with rules, minis, tiles, etc, THAT should be the product you judge how they do on… for my part, I’ve always thought the 3E basic set was a really, really good product, and we sold tons of them.

Like a big nox store doing a ‘soft’ opening before the big bells-n-whistles grand opening, it’s probably not the worst idea to get all those gamers pounding on the system for a few months before boiling it down to the basics for the intro box set.

At least I hope that’s how it’ll work… I would love to sell a bunch of these for Christmas.

One final note is that while yeah, the Classes chapter is a bear, I suspect people read those a lot more like cookbooks than instrcution manuals, skipping over the stuff they’re not going to use right away if it doesn’t do something to immediately hold their interest. I don’t think it’s as much of a problem as it seems at first glance.

And how did YOU feel about the DMG? I was really impressed, they’ve taken what’s traditioally the most unweildy and meandering boook and turned into a book that actually tells you HOW to run a game. It’s certainly the first time I’ll have been itnerested enough to actually READ most of it in ~25 years of D&D; playing.

-Jim C.
Modern Myths, LLC
Northampton, MA

WOTC can’t lose the core, so they’re marketing to that audience first with the core rulebooks. Come November we’ll see a box set version designed for new players, much like we have for 3.5. The 3.5 basic game version is an excellent introduction, and I expect the 4.0 version to be even better. It’s the gateway for beginners. I suppose the real argument should be why they didn’t release this at the same time or first.

Don’t get me started on the wreck of game that is Monopoly.

Of course, I’m also a little disturbed that so far in the DMG I have yet to actually see any discussion of how to make all these monster roles, encounter/xp laundry lists and nifty terrain choices actually fit into, say, a STORY that you are supposed to be telling – the whole thing that makes RPGs interesting to me.