Jason Bulmahn Speaks about DDXP(His take on the system)

[OakwoodDM]

The "bunch" you refer to is still just a few dice rolls (relatively speaking). Assume a fight lasts five rounds, and all five of those rounds the monster is able to recharge his ability. That's a mere five dice rolls.

Actually, the bunch to which he is referring is talking about save rolls, which, in a party of 6, over your 5 round combat (although it seems combats are likely to be nearer 10 rounds in duration) is closer to 30 rolls than 5. Surely that's approaching a lot of rolls?

 

[Nymrohd]

It is amusing to see people who are actually working in the industry (and have by far the most to suffer if, gods forbid, 4E flops) blow every single detail out of proportion. There is a large difference between critic and nitpicking.

 

[Plane Sailing]

A good example of this was the comparison someone did in another post concerning the ranger and warlock, both strikers, who have an attack doing a d10 + modifier. Once all the dailies and encounter powers have been used, they will both fall back to doing their d10 attack action, thus the only difference between them is how they are supposedly doing their damage as the action is technically the same thing, leaving not much diversity between them.

I saw the post where someone said that, and I was very surprised - in my experience the warlock player has very good reasons for moving between eldritch blast, evil eye and ray of frost, to target different defences (and typically focussed on evil eye most of the time when there was a single bad guy because the side effect was so good). The Ranger was a bit of a one trick pony but mostly because he didn't consider the benefits that nimble strike could give him in terms of mobility and keeping out of the way (he was very much in a 3e "stand still and full attack" sort of mindset).

Cheers

 

[Nymrohd]

I think that many people see the pregens and focus on what power does how much damage ignoring the additional effects. Sure almost all classes have a definite main at-will nuke but several of their other powers have rider effects that can prove very useful in the battlefield. Offense is not always the best defense you know?

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

It is amusing to see people who are actually working in the industry (and have by far the most to suffer if, gods forbid, 4E flops) blow every single detail out of proportion. There is a large difference between critic and nitpicking.

Well, aren't you already writing the reason why they "nitpick" - they have to lose the most if 4E fails. And pretending that a weakness or possible problem doesn't exist won't help them if players still notice the weaknesses and encounter the problems and hate the game for it.

Unless you believe that them glossing over it and highlighting the positive points means that more people will get enthusiastic over 4E and it will become a strong success?

But then, there might be different ways to express concerns...

 

[Nymrohd]

Well, aren't you already writing the reason why they "nitpick" - they have to lose the most if 4E fails. And pretending that a weakness or possible problem doesn't exist won't help them if players still notice the weaknesses and encounter the problems and hate the game for it.

Unless you believe that them glossing over it and highlighting the positive points means that more people will get enthusiastic over 4E and it will become a strong success?

But then, there might be different ways to express concerns...

When you work in a certain industry your opinions about changes in it automatically carry more weight to the consumer. The review format of picking on every single detail and if ever you mention anything positive you immediately have to invalidate it by making it ambiguous is unhelpful, not objective, if not downright passive aggresive. People who are involved in the business of making RPGs especially those who primarily work of D&D should exercise caution in presenting their opinions in a neutral manner.
Glowing reviews are even more unnerving; being overtly enthusiastic about something, even if it is the greatest thing in the world, will make your review sound biased and put people on the defensive about it. Some will embrace it, but that is confirmation bias.

I have no problem with reviewers being very critical; that's their job. But the tone and structure of a review are as much a part of it as the arguments and observations in it.

If you work in the RPG industry and want to write a review about 4E make certain that the feel of your review is dispassionate. I understand that you are likely emotionally invested in this game a lot more than the average player; choosing to work in this industry denotes that and you sure are not doing it for the money. But if you cannot divorce tone and feeling from argument and observation, you are doing a disservice to the community.

 

[Halivar]

It is amusing to see people who are actually working in the industry (and have by far the most to suffer if, gods forbid, 4E flops) blow every single detail out of proportion.

Given that most of these publishers make their livelihood off of 3.x, and the running concerns over 4E licensing, I would posit that they have the most to suffer if 4E succeeds. I do not believe that anyone is cynical enough to consciously dump on 4E for that reason; but I do think it colors their responses on some level.

I, for one, know that I certainly decide first if I want to like something, or if it's in my best interests, before deciding whether I like it or not. It's not a strong as an outright prejudice, because it's more easily overcome (I didn't want to like 4E because it looked like a cynical cash-in, but ended up loving what I've seen so far, anyway).

 

[Zinegata]

Actually, the bunch to which he is referring is talking about save rolls, which, in a party of 6, over your 5 round combat (although it seems combats are likely to be nearer 10 rounds in duration) is closer to 30 rolls than 5. Surely that's approaching a lot of rolls?

Again, compared to Risk or A&A, not really.

However, the Save mechanic is smoother than in previous editions, where "one bad roll condemns you to kill your party mates". At least in 4E you have a chance to save every round.

 

[RangerWickett]

I suggest we all consider something before we worry too much about the options and complexity of 4th edition.

Have you ever demoed D&D or Magic at Gen Con? Or any of their other games? Compare how many options you get in that demo to how it is in the real game.

The demo of Magic basically boils down to "We've both got creatures of ascending power levels, but you're the blue-white mage so you can bounce a few and prevent some damage, and I'm the red-green mage so my critters are bigger and I can burn you to the face."

Last night I played a game of Magic where I Ray of Commanded my opponent's Brooding Saurian, Blood Lusted his only potential blocker, Electrolyzed to kill the blocker and hit my opponent for 1 damage and draw a card, and then cast Haze of Rage which copied itself once for each other spell I'd played that turn, giving the stolen Saurian and my Wee Dragonauts each +4 power (not to mention the +8 power the dragonauts got because I cast all those instants), and then I swung in for the kill.

Demos are meant to be simple to learn. They're meant to be easy so as not to discourage players from trying the game out again. To people unfamiliar with D&D, I'm sure the demo was great fun. For those of us with D&D experience, well, the D&D Experience was never going to have enough options to satisfy us. It was just showing off some of the new stuff. You have to assume there's going to be tons more options in the full game.

Complaining about how difficult or how simple the game is from a half-hour demo is jumping to conclusions.

(I'll agree about the saves seeming simplistic, though.)

 

[Falling Icicle]

4E combat at 1st level is swingy because a black dragon might roll high on 3-4 recharge rolls. Okay. Compare to: 3E combat at 1st level is swingy because an ogre might roll middling-to-high on one damage roll. Context please, people.

I thought that making combat, especially low-level combat, less swingy was one of 4e's design goals? Didn't Andy Collins bring up the swinginess of low level combat in 3e as one of his big gripes with it?