D&D 4E Ok to have an opinion about 4E?

[Thornir Alekeg]

In most circumstances, threads and posts in support of 4e are based upon some kind of information we have been given. Based upon that information, people get enthusiastic about the changes that seem to be coming. Perhaps the final version will be different and people enthusiastic about the change will be disappointed, but if they are actually willing to disclose some information about a change, the chances are the final result will be something like it.

In contrast, many of the threads and posts that are worried about 4e that get the "we don't really know anything about 4E yet because they haven't published it so your point is invalid" argument are based upon inferring something, or from something not said. For example, people complaining about "Emerald Frost" and other fluff tradition names inferred that the final PHB will include those traditions in such a way that people will feel compelled to use them - "I wanted to have an Ice Wizard, I guess he'll have to be part of the Emerald Frost." In cases like this, the fact that we have not seen the final version of 4e can be used as an argument with more validity.

 

[gizmo33]

To make a possibly faulty analogy, I like to watch a trailer before I decide to see a movie. I like to play a demo before buying a video game, and I like to skim through a chapter or two before I buy a book. My opinion may change when I see the final product, but until then, those previews are there specifically to help me form an opinion.

I think that's a fair analogy. The purpose of a trailer (et. al.) is for the producers/writers/whoever to communicate to the audience what is important about their creation. True, it's possible that their creation would wind up being cool to you for reasons that the creators didn't anticipate, but I think it's fair to assume that the people creating the trailer are doing a fair job of representing what is important about their work. A trailer for "Conan the Musical" would probably leave me frowning in spite of the fact that I hadn't seen the whole thing.

And in the case of "design previews" for 4E, they've got much more opportunity to clarify/explain things than you do in most preview situations.

 

[gizmo33]

but if they are actually willing to disclose some information about a change, the chances are the final result will be something like it.

In contrast, many of the threads and posts that are worried about 4e that get the "we don't really know anything about 4E yet because they haven't published it so your point is invalid" argument are based upon inferring something, or from something not said.

I don't really see the logical difference here. The "final result will be something like it" in the event that all other possible rules won't contradict it. And this is an inference that the "supporter" makes that I don't see as being logically more sound than what the "detractor" says. (Of course it depends on the specifics.)

I do see what you're saying, but it hasn't been my experience so far. Based on what I've been reading a large part of objections to 4E are based on pretty specific statements from the designers that one has to assume are fairly complete (by both supports and detractors). Then again, if the premise of what I'm saying isn't true and that "detractors" in this case are being overly speculative then I don't object to the argument being made.

However - I will point out that the statement of "you don't know anything about 4E" is overly non-specific and it would be more informative to say "you don't know if ninja-turtles will be part of the game, and here's why that 'design notes' article didn't tell the full story...". Were it the case that the rebuttals are based on the objection you described, I would expect the rebuttal to be framed in such a way.

For example, people complaining about "Emerald Frost" and other fluff tradition names inferred that the final PHB will include those traditions in such a way that people will feel compelled to use them - "I wanted to have an Ice Wizard, I guess he'll have to be part of the Emerald Frost." In cases like this, the fact that we have not seen the final version of 4e can be used as an argument with more validity.

I'm not familiar with this specific issue but AFAICT what you're saying here seems mostly logical. However, isn't it somewhat reasonable to conclude that most people playing 4E will feel compelled to use the rules? And wouldn't it be easier to challenge the person on why they think the Ice Wizard would have to be part of the Emerald Frost? IME a somewhat startling characteristic of 3E was how tightly coupled the various subsystems were to each other - if I didn't like something about 3E it was often very hard to remove it. If you could make the case that removing the Emerald Frost would be easy, or at least challenge me to explain why it might not be, that might be more specific and useful than making a more blanket statement.

 

[Cadfan]

Have all the opinions you want about flavor. But the moment you start talking about Future Rule X being balanced, unbalanced, incompatible with (Future and Unknown) Rule Y, or otherwise poorly integrated into the larger D&D rule set, you're off in Making-Stuff-Up Land, and we all get to poke fun. Its what the internets are for.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

I have no problem with people's opinions, but I'd like it if they opined mostly on subjects that we know some information about. There's a lot of Chicken Little-ism going around based on what might or might not be in 4E. When they tell us that they're "flipping saves," that's perhaps worthy of discussion, despite the poverty of info, but when people complain about drow being in the PHB on the basis of a guess, and with no reference to any evidence, it gets tiresome quickly.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

I think that's a fair analogy. The purpose of a trailer (et. al.) is for the producers/writers/whoever to communicate to the audience what is important about their creation. True, it's possible that their creation would wind up being cool to you for reasons that the creators didn't anticipate, but I think it's fair to assume that the people creating the trailer are doing a fair job of representing what is important about their work. A trailer for "Conan the Musical" would probably leave me frowning in spite of the fact that I hadn't seen the whole thing.

And in the case of "design previews" for 4E, they've got much more opportunity to clarify/explain things than you do in most preview situations.

I think it's worth pointing out that many previews do not provide good information on which to base your decisions. example

They're mostly to build hype.

 

[DaveMage]

You may not have an opinion, unless it's a good opinion.


I've been warned....

 

[gizmo33]

I think it's worth pointing out that many previews do not provide good information on which to base your decisions. example

They're mostly to build hype.

Is it worth pointing that out? The basic idea of a trailer is to make you want to see a movie, and if the trailer is misrepresentative of what is going on in the movie, is that a good thing? Seems to me a bit like arguing against someone saying "Encyclopedia's should be accurate" but taking some page out of one and showing an inaccuracy. IMO that doesn't change what the purpose of the thing is.

I'll recognize that it's a matter of degree, but WotC has an opportunity to make a pretty strong case for it's product. I would hope that there would be less of a possibility of misleading information.

And in terms of "hype", as I said in another thread, DnD is not a product that I (or other players) passively consume. If "Spiderman Part X" is a bad movie, I'm out 10 bucks (or maybe 20) and 2 hours of time. If 4e doesn't work out, there is potentially a lot more frustration on the part of me and the other players. Especially as a DM where you're actually advocating for the game system that you're expecting the players to play by. IMO the energy invested by DnD players into making the game work is enormously more significant than what people invest in a movie or CD, and I think WotC needs to understand that sensitivity about changes in the rules is going to go with the territory. WotC needs to understand that we are all co-authors of the DnD games being played in our homes.

 

[jgbrowning]

until then, those previews are there specifically to help me form an opinion.

More accurately, those previews are there to help you form a positive opinion.

joe b.

 

[Theldyrn]

Sure, it's fine to have an opinion, provided you're aware that it won't be highly informed opinion at this stage. Those who think their speculations are confirmations are amusing at best and despicable at worst.