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

[Lonely Tylenol]

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

I notice we're not seeing any quotes to the effect of, "we tried out this new mechanic that came down the development pipe, but found some things wrong with it, and so we put together some critiques and ideas on how to fix it, and sent it back to R&D." Rather, all playtest experiences are completely awesome (by contractual obligation, perhaps?), and there is no sense that the game is getting any benefit from the exercise.

 

[Imaro]

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.

I'm curious...what systems are you speaking of?

 

[DaveMage]

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.

I disagree. For me, it doesn't matter how good a game 4e is. 4e could be the best edition ever. I'm still not switching. Why? Too many adventures left to run and too many options left to explore in 3.5 before I move on. It will be years before I'm ready to play a different edition.

I will, however, port in the things I like from 4e into house rules for my 3.5 game. (If they have easy portability, of course.) In fact, I'll be inviting others who are in my same boat to help develop a hybrid game that we can all use to continue to run our 3.5 adventures. Several messageboard posters seem interested in this idea.

For example, one of the things I like about 4e (that I have interpreted) is that a cleric won't have to take a turn to heal comrades instead of taking a more fun action. In my "new & imprved" game, I'll probably make healing spells a swift or immediate action.

Now, personally, I think most people will switch to 4e and have a lot of fun with it - but not me.

 

[Glyfair]

I notice we're not seeing any quotes to the effect of, "we tried out this new mechanic that came down the development pipe, but found some things wrong with it, and so we put together some critiques and ideas on how to fix it, and sent it back to R&D." Rather, all playtest experiences are completely awesome (by contractual obligation, perhaps?), and there is no sense that the game is getting any benefit from the exercise.

I've never seen any playtest reports for any game that had those sort of contents. Maybe long after the fact I'll see comments about how they tried something and it didn't work out, or it was sent back for retooling.

There is a big difference between playtest reports used internally (i.e. between playtesters and the designers) and those put out to give an idea of the game. It's sort of pointless to put out a report that showcases something they won't use.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

"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.

I predict that the Rules Compendium won't sell well. I also predict that someone will point to that and say that it's evidence of how much people hate 3.5 and are eagerly awaiting 4th ed.

 

[Raven Crowking]

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.

That is the best time to give glimpses, IMHO. Before they are set-in-stone, when they can still be commented on profitably, so that adjustments can be made before they are finalized. In fact, if our observations now can influence the clouds, as Dave suggests, then they should be giving us something to observe, right?

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.

Some tidbits, some information, something concrete =/= "all the cards" (unless this edition is really lame, which I doubt).

RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

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.

Honestly, I'm torn. There are some things that seem like really good ideas, and some things that seem like giant steps backwards.

Time will tell. It always does.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

I've never seen any playtest reports for any game that had those sort of contents. Maybe long after the fact I'll see comments about how they tried something and it didn't work out, or it was sent back for retooling.

There is a big difference between playtest reports used internally (i.e. between playtesters and the designers) and those put out to give an idea of the game. It's sort of pointless to put out a report that showcases something they won't use.

Exactly.....Because one purpose of playtesting is to convince you to buy the game. Which is why they need to hand a copy to Gizmo33 and Celebrim. If they get those guys singing its praises, I'd probably buy it.

RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

I predict that the Rules Compendium won't sell well. I also predict that someone will point to that and say that it's evidence of how much people hate 3.5 and are eagerly awaiting 4th ed.

I predict that you are right on both counts.

Unless by "someone" you mean only one person, in which case I think you are short of the mark.

 

[Fifth Element]

I notice we're not seeing any quotes to the effect of, "we tried out this new mechanic that came down the development pipe, but found some things wrong with it, and so we put together some critiques and ideas on how to fix it, and sent it back to R&D." Rather, all playtest experiences are completely awesome (by contractual obligation, perhaps?), and there is no sense that the game is getting any benefit from the exercise.

People seem to be conflating what actually goes on in the playtests versus what is being reported of the playtests.

The reporting of the playtests is pure marketing. They're intended to sell the game, and are worded as such. They are very brief, and are sketchy on the nitty-gritty. No reason to expect anything else, since they're only designed as teasers.

As such we have no idea what actually goes on in the playtesting. For one to assume that they're not working out kinks in the system and tweaking things as they go is ridiculous. I don't choose to believe that these professional game designers are incompetent. Playtesting is a basic component of system development. Just because the details of the playtesting are not being released doesn't mean it's not being done.