I agree with Khaalis.
I also find it odd that there seems to be a tacit assumption that since some people will be unsatisfied and that a perfect system is by definition unattainable, that any sort of improvement is inherently not possible. Certainly, each edition offers changes that many consider unwarranted or unwanted. That's the nature of the beast. But so far, all of the changes that the 4e team has suggested they're working on are appealing to me. How that appeals to the majority of 3e players is unknown.
Many people tore their shirts and cried to the heavens when 3.5 was announced and certainly some refused to move to it. The common allegation was that 3.5 was merely Andy Collins' house rules made official. For my part, it eliminated some house rules I had and simplified some issues for our game. In many ways, 3.5 was just some fixes to 3e and not a full-fledged new edition (hence the moniker...it was essentially errata-plus). I'm assuming what Dave means about playtesting is that a large chunk of the 'new' ideas in 4e are based in whole or part on the concepts already advanced over the last three years. Refining the idea of 'reserve feats', for example, or introducing more advanced options for the fighter.
4e promises to remove some elements that have been core assumptions about D&D and that isn't going to sit well in some quarters. There's nothing wrong with that. And if the fanbase truly dislikes the changes, they will vote with their dollars. I completely left D&D when 2e came out. Not because I thought it was a money grab, but because I didn't like the new edition at all. I moved to GURPS, which scratched my itches much better (and did so for 15 years...right until 3e arrived).
Personally, the idea that since DMs have found their own kludges to fix the holes of 3E (as perceived by each individual DM) means that there should be no need for a new editions seems backwards to me. Just because I've learned to live with a metaphorical limp doesn't mean that I enjoy it and 3E has many issues that simply couldn't be observed until it was created. Further, with differing play styles, group sizes and options, every group's experience (and use of the rules therein) is different. Playtesting is all well and good, but it has it's logical limits. Just as one can only test software on a finite number of hardware and software configurations, one can only due a reasonable due dilligence for a PnP RPG. Anyone who is doing playtesting is under an NDA to not discuss it publicly, but that doesn't mean it's not happening.
Raven Crowking said:
I also, please note, did not say nor imply "major parts of the system".
"Every class will have per day, per encounter, and at will abilities" is a minor tidbit. Given the stir that it has caused, some example of what might be per day, per encounter, and at will could be useful and might allay some fears. (Of course, it might cause others, but at least these would be better justified, and the discussion thereof might lead to a better product!)
You don't consider that change to be a major part of the system? Unless you're asking for detailed specifics, which I don't think they'd want to provide this early. From the D&D Insider site, for example, the newest article says: "
Keep in mind that the game is still in a state of flux, as refinements are made by our design and development staff. You’re getting a look behind the curtain at game design in progress, so enjoy, and feel free to send your comments to dndinsider@wizards.com.". As Khaalis pointed out, any details released would be tantamount to a promise of sorts, like a developer of a game promising features it later couldn't deliver.
To be honest, I'm not sure getting feedback from people who don't see any problems with the current iteration of the game really serves WotC's (or my) needs. Quite the opposite, in fact. While the game may be working for them, if they don't see room for improvement and have no interest in a new version of the game, regardless, then I don't know if they'll enrich the playtest process.
