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

[Grog]

I just think it's funny that in about 6-7 years they'll be doing the exact same thing with 4e.

Why is this funny?

 

[Raven Crowking]

Many people tore their shirts and cried to the heavens when 3.5 was announced and certainly some refused to move to it.

That's a bit melodramatic, isn't it?

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.

You will note, I hope, that I said that those DMs should have time to grow disenchanted with their house rules before a new edition, not that there should be no need for a new edition. And, since some of those house rules are better than the kludges in the book, finding out how they work in play is worthwhile (to me, at least).

For many DMs, I suspect, it will seem as though the reward for solving the problems of 3e is having to solve the new problems of 4e, if they switch.

You don't consider that change to be a major part of the system?

No.

I'm not asking for detailed specifics; I'm asking for an overview of what they are thinking, specifically: What sorts of abilities would be per encounter for a wizard? No mechanics required, just a general idea. Likewise for the cleric. A general idea of how they're tackling one or two of the current "resource management" classes ought to give us a much better idea as to whether or not we're going to like it.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

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.

BTW, can you honestly say that if one of the biggest naysayers on this board started saying that (s)he had seen the work in progress, and it blew away any doubts, that it wouldn't result in increased sales (among the naysayers here, at the very least)?

 

[Grog]

BTW, can you honestly say that if one of the biggest naysayers on this board started saying that (s)he had seen the work in progress, and it blew away any doubts, that it wouldn't result in increased sales (among the naysayers here, at the very least)?

This couldn't happen, because if this naysayer became a playtester, he or she would be under an NDA and couldn't talk about their experience at all. In fact, it's been said that the NDA will prevent people from so much as saying that they are playtesters.

 

[BadMojo]

Many people tore their shirts and cried to the heavens when 3.5 was announced and certainly some refused to move to it.

I tore my shirt and then instantly regretted it. It was a really nice bowling shirt with palm trees embroidered on it. Wizards owes me a shirt!!!

 

[Raven Crowking]

This couldn't happen, because if this naysayer became a playtester, he or she would be under an NDA and couldn't talk about their experience at all. In fact, it's been said that the NDA will prevent people from so much as saying that they are playtesters.

Bah.

All WotC would have to do is have the playtesters fill out commentary forms, with the right to use commentary however they like.

This is so easily resolvable a problem that a child could handle it.

 

[Grog]

Bah.

All WotC would have to do is have the playtesters fill out commentary forms, with the right to use commentary however they like.

This is so easily resolvable a problem that a child could handle it.

Publishing commentaries that identify who the playtesters are kind of defeats the purpose of the NDAs mandating that people keep the fact that they're playtesting secret, doesn't it?

 

[Raven Crowking]

Publishing commentaries that identify who the playtesters are kind of defeats the purpose of the NDAs mandating that people keep the fact that they're playtesting secret, doesn't it?

No.

The purpose of the NDA is to keep the playtester from speaking about what is being playtested.

RC

 

[Grog]

No.

The purpose of the NDA is to keep the playtester from speaking about what is being playtested.

According to David Noonan, they're also going to include a clause preventing people from even admitting that they are playtesters. I believe that this was done in previous playtests as well.

 

[Raven Crowking]

According to David Noonan, they're also going to include a clause preventing people from even admitting that they are playtesters. I believe that this was done in previous playtests as well.

Again, self-identifying is fundamentally different than WotC identifying you because it sees an advantage in doing so. Moreover, if said blurbs came out after the books had gone to print, there wouldn't be any real loss for WotC that I could see.

Mr. Noonan can chime in and tell me if I'm wrong, and why.

RC