D&D 4E David Noonan on 4E "Cloudwatching" (Added Dave's newest comment from his blog)

[DM_Jeff]

Wow, so many passionate posts, too many to read lal the way through methinks. So I will say my piece and back off. I'm not looking for a fight with WotC, but not allowed to be annoyed at 4e is putting me in a pressure cooker.

>>Mr. Noonan says: "Telling us what's working/not working at your table right now is a good idea."

3.5 is working at my game table.

And that's the crux of 11 people in NJ, who blame all the folks who post endless complaints about rules that with a little work or common sense would work just fine "wins" and gets a new edition and us, who like and play the game with no problems at all and tell WotC they're doing a good job gets "punished" by having hundreds of dollars of obsolete materials.

That's all. So I'm sorry Dave will be dissapointed with my group not getting 4.0, but we're having a really great time with 3.5. So be happy you all made such an enduring product.

-DM Jeff

 

[DaveMage]

Wow, so many passionate posts, too many to read lal the way through methinks. So I will say my piece and back off. I'm not looking for a fight with WotC, but not allowed to be annoyed at 4e is putting me in a pressure cooker.

>>Mr. Noonan says: "Telling us what's working/not working at your table right now is a good idea."

3.5 is working at my game table.

And that's the crux of 11 people in NJ, who blame all the folks who post endless complaints about rules that with a little work or common sense would work just fine "wins" and gets a new edition and us, who like and play the game with no problems at all and tell WotC they're doing a good job gets "punished" by having hundreds of dollars of obsolete materials.

That's all. So I'm sorry Dave will be dissapointed with my group not getting 4.0, but we're having a really great time with 3.5. So be happy you all made such an enduring product.

-DM Jeff

Jeff, I've noticed you diving into the fray a bit on the WotC boards (though I admit I haven't read too much over there).

Keep the faith!

3.5 is working at my table too (although I will happily steal good (and portable) things from 4.0 and incorporate them into my 3.5 game). In fact, as I've said elsewhere, I'll be making 3.75 and inviting those of us staying behind to join me.

 

[Grog]

And that's the crux of 11 people in NJ, who blame all the folks who post endless complaints about rules that with a little work or common sense would work just fine "wins" and gets a new edition and us, who like and play the game with no problems at all and tell WotC they're doing a good job gets "punished" by having hundreds of dollars of obsolete materials.

Huh? "Wins?" "Punished?"

No offense, but I think you're taking this way too personally.

 

[Celebrim]

Jeff, I've noticed you diving into the fray a bit on the WotC boards (though I admit I haven't read too much over there).

Keep the faith!

3.5 is working at my table too (although I will happily steal good (and portable) things from 4.0 and incorporate them into my 3.5 game). In fact, as I've said elsewhere, I'll be making 3.75 and inviting those of us staying behind to join me.

I'm still working on 3.25.

Still, I understand your meaning well enough.

I'm still sticking behind this analogy:

3rd edition = 1st edition. Enduring game which will keep fans for decades.
3.5 = 1st edition post Unearthed Arcana. Basicly the same game, with some exciting new changes that in retrospect weren't always good for the game but were widely adopted anyway.
4th edition = 2nd edition. Largely internally driven change in the game's direction, feel, and mechanics which abandoned many aspects of the 1st edition experience and which had seemingly arbitrary changes (dropping paladins, for example) which almost noone outside of the company really wanted. Large numbers of fans simply ignored the changes except when they were obvious improvements (bards, dragons, for example) and continued to play 1e. Many other DMs simply left the system in disgust to look for something that was actually going in the direction that they felt the game needed to go.

I'm going to be really interested to see some polls come next year as to what percentage of DMs are actually planning to port thier campaigns. My guess right now is that it is about 50%.

And here is the clincher. The OGL/srd only makes sense as a business decision if you plan future editions of the game to be largely backwards compatible.

Unless they think (and have good reason to do so) that in a few years there will be no money to be made in pen and paper at all, the direction that they are going with 4e makes absolutely no sense to me even at the level of an economic decision.

 

[Glyfair]

I'm going to be really interested to see some polls come next year as to what percentage of DMs are actually planning to port thier campaigns. My guess right now is that it is about 50%.

I'm interested in this as well, as long as you limit "next year" to "December of next year."

 

[DM_Jeff]

Huh? "Wins?" "Punished?" No offense, but I think you're taking this way too personally.

Whoops, you're right. QTIP (quit taking it personally) is a mantra of mine. See, passionate posting, as I said!

-DM Jeff

 

[DM_Jeff]

3.5 is working at my table too (although I will happily steal good (and portable) things from 4.0 and incorporate them into my 3.5 game). In fact, as I've said elsewhere, I'll be making 3.75 and inviting those of us staying behind to join me.

Dave, I wish to join you and/or subscribe to your newsletter!

-DM Jeff

 

[Mouseferatu]

I'm still sticking behind this analogy:

3rd edition = 1st edition. Enduring game which will keep fans for decades.
3.5 = 1st edition post Unearthed Arcana. Basicly the same game, with some exciting new changes than in retrospect weren't always good for the game but were widely adopted anyway.
4th edition = 2nd edition. Largely internally driven change in the game's direction, feel, and mechanics which abandoned many aspects of the 1st edition experience and which had seemingly arbitrary changes (dropping paladins, for example) which almost noone outside of the company really wanted. Large numbers of fans simply ignored the changes except when they were obvious improvements (bards, dragons, for example) and continued to play 1e. Many other DMs simply left the system in disgust to look for something that was actually going in the direction that they felt the game needed to go.

Uh, my 2E PHB has paladins...

And again, you're mistaking your own experiences for those of the majority. I personally know nobody who ignored most of the changes "and continued to play 1E."

In fact, my understanding is that--until TSR shot itself in the foot (and the head)--2E was a more successful system, in terms of overall sales, than 1E had been.

 

[Glyfair]

David has posted [rul=http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?p=13699771#post13699771]a new entry[/url] his blog with a bit of a "cloudwatching" followup.

Some readers (I'd link, but I lost track of the thread) wondered whether "cloudwatching" (maintaining a keen interest in leaked details about a game that isn't out yet) is strictly a D&D phenomenon. My answer: Hell no--gamers in other parts of the hobby game world are cloudwatching just like you. In fact, they might be doing it more.
• Magic: The Gathering is never more than a few months away from a new card set.
• Warhammer 40k players always have a new codex or a new edition on the horizon (it's what, Orks in January, right?).
• World of Warcraft players are simultaneously watching one cloud called "patch 2.2," another called "patch 2.3...the one with Zul'Aman," and a big one on the horizon called "Wrath of the Lich King."

I think that on balance, D&D has less cloudwatching because so much of us are doing our own thing anyway ("user-generated content" in computer game parlance) and our ongoing narratives are so persistent that we can incorporate new stuff only so fast.

And I wouldn't want it any other way. I'm going to mix metaphors here, and say that too much cloudwatching can start to feel like a real treadmill. And even though I'm a runner, I hate treadmills.

 

[WizarDru]

And here is the clincher. The OGL/srd only makes sense as a business decision if you plan future editions of the game to be largely backwards compatible.

The purpose of the OGL/SRD was to encourage third-party support, increase sales of WotC's core materials, provide WotC and it's brands free marketing, provide an amount of free R&D for their own products and gain broad acceptance for their game mechanics.

None of that is dependent on backwards compatability. If it was, then 3E's OGL/SRD program would have been a complete failure.