D&D 4E Are you happy with the coverage of 4e so far?

[delericho]

There's only so many ways you can talk about 4E without talking about the weaknesses of 3E. For example, some people interpret "we're doing X better" as "they're bashing X in 3E".

True. But I'm talking about things being misinterpreted by rabid 4e-haters. I'm talking about things like this:

4E characters will be just as challenged by encounters of their level as 3E characters would be if 3E encounter design actually worked.

(Emphasis mine.) There was no need to bash the previous edition there, and yet it was done. That's the sort of thing I object to.

 

[charlesatan]

There was no need to bash the previous edition there, and yet it was done. That's the sort of thing I object to.

Yes but there's also a point when you have to admit the faults of the previous edition. As a GM who has abused the monster advancement rules, it's a very possible phenomenon. And at the very least, they're the guys who worked on/designed 3E. If anyone's going to be offended, it's them, and admitting that they screwed up on something is never easy. But at least, it's used to propel game design forward.

You have to compare 4E to 3E and inevitably that means saying "we're doing this better".

 

[JVisgaitis]

Actually I think New Year is too soon (unless you're talking about the Chinese New Year). I expect the SRD will be done by shortly before D&D Experience in Feb. (See http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=206847)

I'm referring to exclusive access to the rules for publishers, not the final SRD that will be made public. I don't think January is too soon. It was mentioned at the OGL meeting at Gencon. True, it might be ready by D&D Experience, but no one aside from Publishers and Freelancers will have access to it.

 

[delericho]

Yes but there's also a point when you have to admit the faults of the previous edition.

There's a massive difference of degree between "this is flawed and can be improved" and "this doesn't work".

And it's not even accurate: In the last eight years, hundreds of designers and thousands of DMs have made the encounter design system work.

Is the system perfect? No. Is it possible to improve it? Absolutely. But is it worthless? Absolutely not.

So, by all means, acknowledge the flaws. And tell us how your planning on improving things. But don't paint things as worse than they are, or declare the old system "doesn't work". It's just not true, and it's simply disrespectful.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I have to say, I'm not exactly unhappy with the coverage we've had so far. I'd love to see more, but info seems to be coming in at slow, steady pace, and as long as that continues, it'll be cool.

Certainly the info release-rate seems as high as or higher than 3E, from what I remember (it's quite a while ago now, but I followed 3E from the very first announcements, mostly at this site in it's earlier incarnations), though I seem to remember being told about the upcoming release a lot longer before it occurred (2 years instead of what, ten months?). So maybe they should up the pace a little...

So, by all means, acknowledge the flaws. And tell us how your planning on improving things. But don't paint things as worse than they are, or declare the old system "doesn't work". It's just not true, and it's simply disrespectful.

What rot. It's not "disrespectful", that's petty and thin-skinned. He's being honest, and whilst you don't have to agree with his assertion, it's not disrepectful of him to say it. As for "painting things worse than they are", well, that's all opinion, and it's not something he's "not allowed" to say, as you are quite clearly and definately stating.

If Chris Perkins says encounter design "didn't work", that's his opinion as a game designer, and if you're going to talk about "respect" you need to "respect" that, mate. For you there may be a gaping gulf between "doesn't work", and "is crap", but for others, there may not be, so don't try and mind-read or worse, force everyone to speak "your way". It's not respectful.

 

[Just Another User]

Eight months actually.

You could be right, but I'm sure I read a news saying that the PHB should be disponible at february, probably not as in "for sale" but as "the content is mostly definitive".

Checked, I was thinking to the "D&D experience" the 1st D&D demo, and I think at that point the rules would be pretty much stable

Of course WotC is trying to hype people for 4E.

Of course, but I can't remove the impression that at the moment they are hypeing hot air. I honestly hope you are right and I'm wrong.

 

[delericho]

It's not "disrespectful", that's petty and thin-skinned. He's being honest, and whilst you don't have to agree with his assertion, it's not disrepectful of him to say it. As for "painting things worse than they are", well, that's all opinion

Yes, of course it's all opinion. That is what this thread is about, after all. I've stated my opinion of the coverage, both good and bad, and the reasons for it. And, yes, I stand by it.

If it makes you feel better, when I say "don't..." feel free to read it as "I would prefer it if you didn't..." I'm sure it will make a huge difference to Wizards and their representatives.

However, if Wizards' grand strategy for persuading me that 4e is going to be a big improvement over 3e is to try to persuade me that the systems I have been using successfully for eight years somehow didn't work for the course of those eight years, then I'll submit they're taking the wrong approach. Retcons may work in fiction; they don't work in real life.