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

[Raven Crowking]

Sounds like WoW.

And, I would say, a major contributor to the success of WoW.

The formula of "easy entry + ability to ramp up complexity + meaningful challenge = successful game" should be a pretty clear & self evident one, IMHO.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Why? Why would their playtest experiences be any less valid than anyone else's?

They are already "into" the system and would, therefore, be less likely to try it out in ways it was not designed for. Easy example: The CR System in 3.0 required adjusting in 3.5 because the designers/playtesters assumed that certain creatures would be used/fought in certain ways, and with a wider audience this proved not to be true. The adjustments included (1) changing some CRs, and (2) telling you how you were supposed to use some monsters.

The point of playtesting is to determine how the system works under multiple playstyles and from as widely divergent a test sample as possible, because that gives the best playtest possible.

The purpose of playtesting is not to convince people to buy the product.

If that was completely true, we wouldn't keep hearing how Kewl it is from WotC's playtesting.

 

[Raven Crowking]

3.5 already demonstrated that they will do just that.

I wonder how the Core Books sales figures for 3.5 stack up per year to 3.0.?

I know that I bought the 3.0 Core, but refused to buy 3.5.


RC

 

[Shadeydm]

Why? Why would their playtest experiences be any less valid than anyone else's?

Yes because their playtests were so good last time that it landed us... v3.5, so why on earth would they need to do a better job this time?

 

[Raven Crowking]

If WotC/Hasbro were not going to make money, you wouldn't HAVE D&D. Simple as that.

Clearly, someone had better tell Paizo, Necromancer Games, etc., that the only model that can make money with rpgs is regular new editions.

Of course, if all Necromancer sold was revisions of Rappan Athuk, I imagine the customer base would dry up, and I believe that new editions that come out "too soon" (nebulous, I know) may well do the same thing.

Obviously, I could be wrong. Time will tell.

EDIT: What I think we are seeing here is clear evidence that a large part of the potential customer base doesn't believe that 4.0 will be a major improvement. If we all believed that 4.0 was going to be a much better game, then I imagine no one would be complaining. I'd happily shell out again for a game that was clearly superior. However, from the tidbits that they are dropping, and from some of the hype techniques being used, I don't believe that 4.0 is that animal.

Yes, lots of DMs have come up with fixes to the problems they perceive. 4.0 has to be better than their fixes in order to succeed. Why would you fix one edition, crafting it to your needs, just so that you can start all over again? Coming up with houserules is (for some) fun. WotC should have given customers the chance to grow dissatisfied with their own fixes, stopped the stream of splatbooks, focused on adventures and other products that could be used with the new edition, and then announced 4e.

"Keep buying our 3.5 stuff, don't worry 4e is a long way off, guess what it's coming in May, but keep buying our 3.5 stuff....here's a Rules Compendium!" simply does not win friends and influence people.

At least, not IMHO.

Again, time will tell.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I agree with you; the WotC designers do genuinely believe they are improving the game (and perhaps they are; heck, we haven't seen 4e yet).

But my point was that it is nonsense to suggest that the introduction of 4e was motivated by ANYTHING other than profit. The suits at Hasbro looked at the balance sheet and said, "3.5 isn't profitable anymore. Time for 4.0."

And honestly, that's fine. They're a corporation; they need to be profitable to survive. But please don't start burying us in pro-4e and anti-3.5 propaganda and pretend that this is all a matter of "evolution of game design." It's about bucks, as the introduction of a new product always is. The fact that the WotC designers are excited about the new product and believe it is an improvement doesn't change that.

Put it another way: if 3.5 had been burning up sales charts and raking in millions of $$$, do you honestly think we'd be seeing 4e now? And do you honestly think WotC designers would be publicly musing about how awkward 3.5 is to play and how difficult it is to DM?

Maybe they would not, because if the game was so succesful in your alternative reality, maybe the game was also better?

I think it is perfectly fine that the designers talk about the weaknesses of D&D 3.5. They try to make us understand why it is not just a good business decision to get out a new game - nobody except WotC really cares about that. They try to make clear to us how we will actually benefit from a new edition. Just as previously they would describe what cool new features will be in the next supplement and how it will improve the current edition.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I think it is perfectly fine that the designers talk about the weaknesses of D&D 3.5. They try to make us understand why it is not just a good business decision to get out a new game - nobody except WotC really cares about that. They try to make clear to us how we will actually benefit from a new edition. Just as previously they would describe what cool new features will be in the next supplement and how it will improve the current edition.

Then they need to do more than say there is an actual benefit; they need to demonstrate that it is so.

Moreover, while they provide actual benefits to the parts of 3.5 that need fixing, they need to demonstrate that they are not screwing up the parts that do not need fixing.

At least, IMHO.

RC

 

[Khaalis]

Then they need to do more than say there is an actual benefit; they need to demonstrate that it is so.
Moreover, while they provide actual benefits to the parts of 3.5 that need fixing, they need to demonstrate that they are not screwing up the parts that do not need fixing.
At least, IMHO.
RC

This is true, but unfortunately, this isn't going to happen up front for two primary reasons.

1) The system has still not been finalized. It is still being written, refined, tweaked and re-written as we speak. It is difficult to give concrete examples of all that we need to know when it has yet to be finalized.

2) As much as D&D is about Fantasy, we are dealing with a real world product, made by a real world company, with real world profit expectations and marketing goals. It is not in their best interest, at this point in time, to drop all the cards on the table so to speak. Its bad marketing, and thus bad business.

Now do either of these make me feel all warm and fuzzy as a consumer? No. I believe they should have waited until they were a bit farther toward the "finalized" line than they are before announcing the product. However, I realize the reality of the situation. This leads me to know that I must bide my time, watch, listen, research, etc. as the new information becomes available before I make any judgment calls on the product or the decision to release the edition.

What I can "Hope" for as a consumer is that the edition will live up to what it "should" be, which is a better evolution of the game. There have been MANY game systems and many alternate d20 rule-sets that have come of the OGL/SRD. I can hope that the R&D team has done a good job of seeing what was broken in 3E and done a good job at making 4E a better game.

Will it happen? Only time will tell, and even then it will fall prey to the same thing as every other edition, and every other game system or rules-set to see the light of day. Some will love it, some will hate it, some won't give a rat's ... one way or the other. There is no such thing as a "Perfect" game system, or even game world for that matter. When dealing with intellectual properties - EVERYONE has their own opinion on whats is good and what works vs. what is crap.

So again, overall, I say we need to simply sit back and wait. It is too early to make any kind of decision one way or the other unless you are either a hardcore Fanboy or Hater; and in these cases nothing is going to change their opinion anyway. /shrug

JMHO. YMMV.

 

[Blackwind]

EDIT: What I think we are seeing here is clear evidence that a large part of the potential customer base doesn't believe that 4.0 will be a major improvement. If we all believed that 4.0 was going to be a much better game, then I imagine no one would be complaining. I'd happily shell out again for a game that was clearly superior. However, from the tidbits that they are dropping, and from some of the hype techniques being used, I don't believe that 4.0 is that animal.

Yeah. A lot of people here seem to be assuming that 4E will not be a significant improvement. A lot of people are also assuming it will be. Me, I'll wait and see... in the meantime though, I'm eager to follow all the information that's being released, and surprisingly (you may recall that I've been dissatisfied with 3.x and a bit of a WotC hat0r in the past) I like what I'm seeing so far. The changes they are talking about so far seem like good changes, to me, and address a lot of the issues that I have with 3.x. Color me cautiously optimistic.

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

Clearly, someone had better tell Paizo, Necromancer Games, etc., that the only model that can make money with rpgs is regular new editions.

I'm sure that if Paizo and Necromancer were selling core books, they'd be selling new editions. Compared to most of the other systems of similar age, D&D has had fewer editions.