I will be interested to hear -- both his reasons for hating and just what it was he was expecting that was making him rabidly pro pre-release. (I have no dog in the fight, but the controversy is interesting on all sides.)

Sean, I suppose I shouldn't be but that actually amuses me. Just my perverse sense of humor, I guess. I look forward to hearing more.

Ours still hasn't arrived, but every review makes it look more and more like a tactical fighting game. It could be a FUN tactical fighting game, but I don't think it's for me.

I mean, our gaming table is famous for exceeding any "time to play" estimate by at least two times because of role-playing.

In boardgaming news, our regular Saturday game was suspended due to a bad case of salmonella (mine), so we played a couple boardgames instead.

"Ra" is an Egyptian-themed bidding game. My DH always wins. I can't figure the game out, but at least I didn't come in last this time. It moves fast and has nice pieces. House rule: When you invoke Ra, you have to chant "Who is the fun god? Who is the sun god? Ra! Ra! Ra!" and do a dance.

"Winds of Plunder" is a pirate-themed game. Go on, act surprised. It's about wind, and plunder. You cruise around the Caribbean doing piratical things: establishing your reputation; gaining crew, provisions, and weapons; collecting booty; plundering other pirates. It's a victory point game, and quite unfortunately may have lead to a house rule requiring one ship to be named The Burning Stream and another to be named The Monkeyfucker.

House rule: When you invoke Ra, you have to chant "Who is the fun god? Who is the sun god? Ra! Ra! Ra!" and do a dance.

Ohh, iced tea everywhere.

"Ra" is an Egyptian-themed bidding game.

It's a different Egyptian-themed game, but this is a hilarious session report of a game of Amun-Re: [link]

Oh, that's hysterical.

For your reading pleasure:

D&D 4th Edition: Scourge of the Insufferable Prick

Hrm, just saw in a distributor's catalogue, coming out in a month or so, Storming the Castle: The Princess Bride boardgame...

And apparently the video game of The Princess Bride was supposed to come out today: [link]

Ok, I've now had a look through the 4E rule books, and tried putting together some sample characters and things. I haven't yet played it, so that's a big caveat. I'm still waiting for Amazon to deliver the first published mod, Keep on the Shadowfell, and when it arrives I'll see if my group wants to try running through it. But I'm now ready to give my impressions. This is largely in the context of a comparison to 3E. So: behold my imposing Wall of Text!

Summary
It's a sweet little RPG. Quite different from 3E in some underlying philosophies, though the basic mechanisms are still the same. I'm running a 3.5 Eberron campaign, and I'll be shamelessly stealing some of the ideas from the 4E DMG to bolster the roleplaying side of things. I already have the campaign storyline, and I have no trouble putting combats together, but I struggle with getting the balance right in role-playing sitches. (This is the first time I've seen a D&D rule set offer not just advice, but mechanical support for the GM to put together role-playing situations.)

Development Goals
I have this quote from Mike Mearls regarding the issues with 3E that they wanted to address in 4E:

1. Generating numbers for NPCs is like doing (really boring) homework.
2. The game seems to function best at about levels 5 to 12.
3. High level games are cumbersome and difficult to run.
4. Low level games are swingy.
5. The CR system is confusing and produces wonky results.
6. Spellcasters outclass everyone else.
7. Multiclassing works for only certain combinations. Classic tropes (warrior-wizards) need new core classes because the core system doesn't work.
8. Characters have too few skill points.
9. Monsters are unnecessarily complicated.
10. You don't get enough feats.
11. Attacks of opportunity are confusing.
12. Magic items are really important, but it isn't equal. Some items are critical, others are complete chaff.
13. There are a number of weird little subsystems that introduce unnecessary complexity, like grappling.

I don't think AoOs are really that confusing, but aside from that I have no factual beef with this list. I don't care much about some of the points, even if I do agree that they'll bother some people, and from a game design perspective, should be addressed. (Which never stopped me from enjoying 3E overall.) The key issues for me boil down to:

A. The GM has to do a lot of annoying paperwork that doesn't really have much payoff, taking time away from the interesting stuff. (1 and 9, sometimes 5)

B. Low and high levels don't work as well as the middle levels. (2, 3, 4)

C. "System mastery" matters too much. 3E can be a cheese weasel's dream; conversely, novices can easily wind up with options that unexpectedly hamper their character. This is another way of saying the basic system works against balance . (6, 7, 12)

4E looks very effective at addressing these issues. There's a cost; even allowing that only three books are out so far, I think the game structure will make customisation less flexible even after new books add options. Plus, while nonmagical classes now have more class options, casters have fewer options (i.e. spells).

Conclusion: I think 4E is better from a game perspective. It's better balanced, easier to pick up, and a GM's dream. It doesn't match 3E's supreme flexibility. Being a better balanced game means curtailing options that could be unbalancing, and that's a shame. It partially compensates by (IMO) handling things outside the rules a bit better.

So how does it play?
Here I'm at a disadvantage, I haven't played yet. My impressions here are thus incomplete. With that strong caveat, here's how it looks to me:

It's still D&D, so combat still takes up the bulk of the rules. In 3E, your combat effectiveness depended heavily on how you crafted your character. In 4E, it seems that your tactics on the battlefield matter more. Fights are more fluid, you have fewer one-hit victories, you're unlikely to be rendered useless (continued...)