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

[Ruin Explorer]

Do you actually believe that the playtesting and/or message board comments will have any impact on the game, at this late date?

I sure don't believe that for a minute. Those lucky enough to be involved in playtesting (which sadly seems to only involve groups of six people - no more, no less - which seems like a piss-poor way to playtest things to me) may well have some influence, but the rest of us? Hah. The PHB is allegedly going to be finished by late February, so the vast majority of the design decision must already be set in stone, with only tweaking (though perhaps some significant tweaks), simple addition (more talents, feats, spells, etc.) and re-writing of unclear or badly-written parts to go.

I don't say this because I'm opposed to the process or to 4E, but the blog poster assumes an extremely high-handed tone and is being, well, fanciful in his suggestion that someone's description of their game is genuinely likely to influence the WotC design process in a meaningful way when they're weeks from playtesting.

 

[DaveMage]

These are the same people who've written all of that great 3.5 material you use.

Actually, that's not entirely true.

The ones that wrote much of the great 3.5 material I'm using are Ari Marmell, Erik Mona, James Jacobs, Clark Peterson, Bill Webb, Harley Stroh, Robert Schwalb, Monte Cook, Jonathan Tweet, Skip Williams, Sean K Reynolds, and Scott Greene.

None of these people are on the design team.

 

[Greg K]

The doom and gloom and negative attacks against the designers is just uncalled for and silly. These are the same people who've written all of that great 3.5 material you use. Give them a chance to show off 4.0 before you naysay them.

Except that I don't consider the majority of stuff that they put out to be great. Honestly, other than the dedicated monster type books (e.g., Dragonomicon and Fiendish Codex) most of the stuff from WOTC is, imo, horrible when compared to several third party companies (including those the WOTC designers have worked for in the past) and even material on some of the designer's own web site material . I don't use TOB:Bo9S (like the goal, but not the execution) or MMV which are said to be previews. I don't like the Star Wars game, again said to be a preview. I don't like or use Weapons of Legacy, Magic of Incarnum, Tome of Magic, Expanded Psionics Handbook, MM3, MM4. I found 90% or more of the material in the Complete books (excluding Warrior and Arcane) , Race books, Environment Books (excluding Stormwrack) to not to be to my taste. Even the PHB2 had precious little that I liked maybe 25% of the material which is better than most WOTC releases.

There is very little in the information coming out of WOTC to alleviate my concerns that 4e will, IMO, be done wrong for my tastes and those of my friends. That is not to say that I have not heard a few things that I like. I like that they are addressing the Christmas Tree syndrome. I like that they are extending the sweet spot, but I hope it is not at the expense of lower level play (levels 1-4). I like that the exp penalty for casting spells and creating magic items is gone. I even like the points of late (provided it does not affect existing settings by requiring resets). I am even looking forward to see how classes are handled. However, the game play examples and other info coming out of WOTC seem indicate the designers are taking actual play and other aspects of the game into a direction that I do not like.

Now, I hope that the designers prove me wrong which is why I look for the bits of released info . However, the track record at WOTC and currently released info, as I said, are reinforcing not alleviating my concerns.

 

[helium3]

What sort of word on playtesting were you expecting? It's happening...under NDAs, so there's really not much that can or is being said. Were you expecting detailed playtester announcements?

You're right. It's a super secret playtesting that so secret the playtesters secretly don't even know they're secretly playtesting.

 

[Psion]

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.

This was the attitude I took at the end of 2e.

I ended up moving forward to 3e. Why? It was clear (after actual play experiences) 3e was better.

Now that is not to say that history will repeat here for me personally. What I am saying is that if I move forward to 4e, it will be because it proves authentically better. Whether that happens remains to be seen.

There's every chance I'll be right there with you, DaveMage.

 

[Celebrim]

Actually, that's not entirely true.

The ones that wrote much of the great 3.5 material I'm using are Ari Marmell, Erik Mona, James Jacobs, Clark Peterson, Bill Webb, Harley Stroh, Robert Schwalb, Monte Cook, Jonathan Tweet, Skip Williams, Sean K Reynolds, and Scott Greene.

None of these people are on the design team.

QFT.

Tweet, Cook, and Williams will be particularly missed.

Though they wouldn't necessarily be on my dream design team, Mona and Stroh are the best module writers of this generation IMO.

Which brings up a question. I know this is probably somewhere obvious, and I know Mearls is on the design team (head designer?), but who is on the design team?

 

[RPG_Tweaker]

Except that I don't consider the majority of stuff that they put out to be great. <snip> most of the stuff from WOTC is, imo, horrible when compared to several third party companies <snip> I don't use TOB:Bo9S (like the goal, but not the execution) or MMV which are said to be previews. I don't like the Star Wars game, again said to be a preview. I don't like or use Weapons of Legacy, Magic of Incarnum, Tome of Magic, Expanded Psionics Handbook, MM3, MM4. I found 90% or more of the material in the Complete books (excluding Warrior and Arcane) , Race books, Environment Books (excluding Stormwrack) to not to be to my taste. Even the PHB2 had precious little that I liked maybe 25% of the material which is better than most WOTC releases. <snip> However, the game play examples and other info coming out of WOTC seem indicate the designers are taking actual play and other aspects of the game into a direction that I do not like. <snip>

Wow... no snarkiness intended, but with all this, I'm amazed you have any interest in what WotC is up to at all.

 

[Greg K]

Wow... no snarkiness intended, but with all this, I'm amazed you have any interest in what WotC is up to at all.

Occasionaly, the designers do come up with something worth stealing for my own game. For instance, Complete Adventurer and Races of the Wild both of which i disliked had expanded skills uses and a few spells. Frostburn and Sandstorm had expanded environmental rules. Complete Champion had the spell less variants for ranger and paladin. I wouldn't buy any of the five books just listed, but each did have something that I liked- just not nearly enough for me to purchase the book.

Then there are the occassional books that I do like (e.g, Unearthed Arcana, Stormwrack, the dedicated monster theme books (e.g., Dragonomicon).

With that in mind, I may not be planning on switching(based on the design theory articles, recent WOTC releases, and bits revealed about 4e) , but I recognize that the designers might introduce new ideas worth stealing. At this moment, those elements include how they handle the "christmas tree syndrome" and rebalance spellcasters which are issues I have had dating back to 1e. Furthermore, I want to see how they handle both removing exp costs for creating magic items and creating certain spells and extending the sweet spot .

 

[DM_Jeff]

The doom and gloom and negative attacks against the designers is just uncalled for and silly. These are the same people who've written all of that great 3.5 material you use.

Well, as DaveMage and others comments above, I don't see the names of my favorite 3.5 authors on the 4.0 design team either. I got a better comment taken from the quote above...how about:

"The doom and gloom and negative attacks against 3.5 the current designers are now making is just uncalled for and silly."

There, that's better.

 

[WizarDru]

You're right. It's a super secret playtesting that so secret the playtesters secretly don't even know they're secretly playtesting.

No, if certain people have revealed information about such topics to other people, who's name rhymed with BlizarDru, would you expected detailed information about those people or NDA-violating information to appear in a public forum frequented by the people who asked that person to sign an NDA in the first place?