Is it just me...

[helium3]

I sincerely hope you forgot a [sarcasm] tag in your post. No game I have run in 20+ years of DMing has featured players sitting glumly around a table rolling dice. Some PR/marketing goon with a knowledge of psychology wrote the script that way to subtly indicate that 4E is a fun game, while 3.x is not. I agree that it is the focus of 4E, making the game more fun to play, and I think it's a noble one.

Sarcasm is less effective if you have to tag it.

I've seen the glumly rolling dice effect first hand, but that's just because we're currently trying to slog our way through Expedition to Castle Ravenloft at the moment. I think our D&D play area has BECOME the demi-plane of dread.

 

[Celebrim]

I've seen the glumly rolling dice effect first hand, but that's just because we're currently trying to slog our way through Expedition to Castle Ravenloft at the moment. I think our D&D play area has BECOME the demi-plane of dread.

Isn't it amazing how bad the re-working of Castle Ravenloft is? I picked up that book and I literally couldn't believe how badly the writer did not understand the original module.

The original module didn't play that way at all, I assure you (except perhaps the Catacombs level which is abit of an unnecessary slog).

 

[zoroaster100]

I agree with Andor. It seems like they are still trying to decide on some basic elements and they won't have time to fully test everthing before they are up against the wall because of their announced release. I'd rather they push back the release date a couple of months than release something they haven't properly tested and perfected.

 

[Jhulae]

And they collected the data from these so called playtest groups how? SW saga ed. just came out, and it's just now hitting the point where the shiny has worn off and people are really starting to look at it's mechnics for good or ill. So I still don't see actual playtesting...with pertinent feedback being given.

All the books I mentioned had some playtesting. Obviously SW Saga was playtested in some fashion before they released it, which means, the core mechanic for 4th Edition was already playtested. Same with the other books.

A lot of questions and other issues about SWSE are being posted on the SWSE boards at Wizards. That information is being compiled at least by the writers of the books, as they reply back quite often. I'd imagine that information is also being used in refining 4th Ed, as it's already being used to refine SWSE.

But, whatever.

 

[Andor]

All the books I mentioned had some playtesting. Obviously SW Saga was playtested in some fashion before they released it, which means, the core mechanic for 4th Edition was already playtested. Same with the other books.

A lot of questions and other issues about SWSE are being posted on the SWSE boards at Wizards. That information is being compiled at least by the writers of the books, as they reply back quite often. I'd imagine that information is also being used in refining 4th Ed, as it's already being used to refine SWSE.

But, whatever.

Let's not get sidetracked. Nobody is worried about core mechanics. These guys are pros and can juggle attack progressions etc just fine. But again, details matter. Editing matters. Synergies matter. They are doing 30 levels of classes and the playtesters so far are oohing and ahing about 14th level. That's as though 4 months before 3e went to print they were just checking out 10th level. Multi-classing, stacking abilities, feats, items, spells, races, all of these things interact and sometimes in odd ways.

For example, they said they don't want there to be any self gimping choices. What's a self gimping choice? To pick a 3ed example a Fighter 1/ Rogue 1 has 4 HP more than a Rogue 1/ Fighter 1, at the expense of 24 skill points. A player who picks the fighter 1st has gimped himself compared to the player who takes rogue at 1st.

Well good, nobody wants to gimp themselves, but details matter. Can my warlock suddenly double his damage output at 10th level by dipping into rogue? Does poor wording in the 4e dodge feat make it seem that it stacks round by round? If 2 dozen playtesters report that a warlock power is broken a week before the books go to print, will they have a firm enough grip on the system to fix it properly?

I'm not worried that we're going to see a broken skill system, or a too complex combat system. It's the details I'm fretting.

 

[Aloïsius]

I'm not worried that we're going to see a broken skill system, or a too complex combat system. It's the details I'm fretting.

Me too. I would like 4e to be published 3 or 4 months later. Closer to Xmas
Of course, we don't know how many playtesting groups there are, and how much games they run. There may be 50 games in each tier of play (heroic, paragon, epic), and they may run two games a weeks...

 

[BASHMAN]

Is it just me, or does it feel to anyone else like WoTC announced 4e kinda prematurely? The fluidity I'm perciveing about classes, races, spells, powers etc feels to me like they don't have anything like enough time to do adequate playtesting before the game ships. This is not quick run, print on demand stuff. They need to have the books locked down months before they ship, and it feels like they are still brain storming the basics.

I'm becomeing a bit concerned frankly.

Well, I agree that they announced it too soon... but for totally different reasons. As soon as 4e was announced, I was rabid for any crunch information about the game. All that any playtest reports have told us, however is fluff because "its too early". Now, I remember when 3e was coming out, there was crunch-galore-- nearly entire srd printed as "black pages" here on this very site (or the site the pre-dated this one-- Eric Noah's).

Part of my problem (my impatience) is that when I found out about 3rd edition, I was able to get solid info/updates all the time on it. I was reading lists of feats, classes, races, etc-- making characters, long before 3e ever came out. Anything that wasn't made yet I was filling in with my own "educated guesses". When 4e was announced, I made the same assumption-- that there'd be this flood of open-source information that Wizards doesn't care if playtesters leak. I was wrong on that-- but also I think wrong to assume that so much info would be coming so fast.

I think in January, after the preview books (preview of art & fluff of 4e not mechanics) we'll see more solid mechanical info being shared.

In retrospect, I would have been happier had they waited to announce 4e until they were ready to start sharing this info. Then I could have continued to enjoy my 3.5 game in blissful ignorance. Pining for 4e, 3.5 seems to have lost its appeal to me...

 

[Kafen]

Is it just me, or does it feel to anyone else like WoTC announced 4e kinda prematurely? The fluidity I'm perciveing about classes, races, spells, powers etc feels to me like they don't have anything like enough time to do adequate playtesting before the game ships. This is not quick run, print on demand stuff. They need to have the books locked down months before they ship, and it feels like they are still brain storming the basics.

I'm becomeing a bit concerned frankly.

I suspect that we will see the material with a semi-solid base appear in the first set of books such as the PHB, DMG, and MM. With the printing of the second set of books such as the PHB 2, DMG 2, and MM 2, I expect we will see new rules and subtle fixes roll out (4.25?) at that time.

Remember, the new content is a package deal - interactive website material in that deal. The second round of books will force players using the web material from WOTC to upgrade.

Does all that make me feel they released it early? It seems to me the uncertainty of the classes set to appear in the first round of books suggests the core rules are fluid at the moment.....which is not something I want in a final product. So yeah, I think they are set to print way too early if they can not produce a rough SRD during beta testing.

 

[see]

3E kept the basic classes, races, and terminology, but, among other changes, introduced the D20 mechanic and a more complex combat system. It relaxed rules for racial- and multi-classing, introduced a formal and consistent skills system and used a "modular" system for magic items.

And in 4e, we're getting a new set of rules for multiclassing (rmember the bit about taking your first level of wizard at 15th making sense?), replacing the whole magic item system (both on creation/pricing and on use/the Christmas Tree Effect), moving most of a spellcaster's power out of the old Vancian system, eliminating all save-or-die effects . . .

Well, I can see how you would disagree, but it sounds like a mechanical revision on the same order as the AD&D-to-3e change to me.

 

[GVDammerung]

Is it just me, or does it feel to anyone else like WoTC announced 4e kinda prematurely? The fluidity I'm perciveing about classes, races, spells, powers etc feels to me like they don't have anything like enough time to do adequate playtesting before the game ships. This is not quick run, print on demand stuff. They need to have the books locked down months before they ship, and it feels like they are still brain storming the basics.

I'm becomeing a bit concerned frankly.

Yup. That's the vibe.

I forget who or where but someone opined that they expected the 2008 release of 4e to be extremely "buggy" in a Microsoft "latest and greatest" release kinda way and that 4.x would then be the inevitable outcome be it the 2009 PH/MM/DMG or whathaveyou. They finished off by noting they might wait awhile to adopt until the inevitable errata to avoid being an unpaid beta tester and having to pay $90 or so dollars for that "priviledge."

I'm very wait and see, with emphasis on both "waiting" and "seeing." The playtest rollout of 4e is not something that inspires confidence, IMO.