D&D 4E Rant on the 4E "Presentation"

[ThirdWizard]

I recall asking for a link to that thorough debunking. I am not surprised to not have received it.

There was an entire thread about that. Surely you saw it?

I think the thing is that it has been debunked so many times, and its common knowledge to most people.

Saying something isn't true because you didn't see it is bad mojo. Especially when making libelous claims.

 

[Raven Crowking]

There was an entire thread about that. Surely you saw it?

I think the thing is that it has been debunked so many times, and its common knowledge to most people.

Saying something isn't true because you didn't see it is bad mojo. Especially when making libelous claims.

Link?

I didn't say that something isn't true because I didn't see it; I said that evidence that I am unable to examine is unlikely to sway my opinion.

And exactly what "libelous claims" are we talking about here? That I believe WotC lied? That people can examine the evidence for themselves? (You will note that I linked to what I was talking about, and explained what conclusions I drew from it and why. I haven't yet seen this massive debunking that is common knowledge, but apparently is so difficult to link to that no one is willing to do so.)

You say that I am wrong. You say that this has been thoroughly debunked. It should be simplicity itself to link, and let me examine the debunking for myself. And, when I have, I'll decide whether I believe I was wrong, or whether I believe it was debunked like the moon landing was debunked.


RC

 

[Piratecat]

Not to mention, you just revealed what I think is the problem for people demanding "more more".

Nothing other than the books will satisfy you.

You want to know how a class will be worth playing and balanced at EVERY LEVEL?

Seriously, think about what you'd have to know, to have that information.

You'd have to have the whole class.

And all the other classes, because its only viable if it isn't completely overshadowed by the other classes right?

Okay, heads up, folks.

I'm going to use Vigilance as an example, but he's hardly alone. Please make a special effort not to ascribe motives to other people. Frankly, you don't know what other people need or think, and telling them what they believe is a great way to make a thread crash and burn.

There are better ways to say the same thing. In this case, simply asking "is there any way to deliver what you want without giving you every single class?" might have done the trick. But telling Joe what he requires isn't okay.

Right, then. Avoid this. Avoid insults, and comments that are just on the line but which you intend as provocative insults. And let's get the thread back on track.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Link?

Only because you ask so nice.

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=204662&page=1&pp=20&highlight=rumor+rest

http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=905801&page=5

In particular, this is a good one:

http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=3720294&postcount=25

delericho might know where the original thread is, but I can't find it. It has the most information in it concerning quotes floating around.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Only because you ask so nice.

Thank you for your links.

However, none of them address the area that concerned me, which I linked to above. If you believe that Eric's info was way off-base (and, obviously, some vocally do) then you'll disagree that this was dissembling. If you believe that Eric is lying or mistaken about the email he received, then you'll disagree that this was dissembling.

However, if you believe that Eric's information was not so far off-base, and you think that he is honestly and intelligently reporting on his experience, then debunking Claim A does not debunk Claim B.

I find it somewhat strange that some of the same people who say that Claim B is wrong also defend Claim B if it is right -- WotC has an obvious reason to want to keep news of 4e under wraps until they were ready to release it.


RC

 

[Wolfspider]

However, remember what your evidence for that is... monster stats for the D&D Miniatures Game. Now it makes sense for the stats for the miniatures game to favor miniature movement, but that doesn't necessarily tell us what the D&D Roleplaying Game says.

This is not accurate.

The 4e monster stats for the Spined Devil can be found at this link:

http://www.enworld.org/images/4e/monstestat.jpg

You can clearly see from this picture that the movement notation for the Spined Devil is listed as "SPD 5" and "FLY 7."

If you move your eyes to the bottom of the 4e card (right above the 3rd edition card used for comparison purposes), you will see the statement "D&D ROLEPLAYING STATS."

You see, even though the cards come with the miniatures, they include stats for both the mini game (on one side of the card) and the RPG (on the flip side).

The evidence seems pretty strong to me that D&D 4e will be a more miniature/counter friendly game than previous editions.

 

[Raven Crowking]

The neat thing about evidence is that anyone (in theory) ought to be able to examine it and make up their own minds.

 

[ThirdWizard]

However, none of them address the area that concerned me, which I linked to above.

Oh, that had already been addressed so I thought we were going more general now.

But, here are the things that were said: 4e in the works, more miniature-centric, with a collectible aspect. A high up in WotC then emailed Eric saying that this information was way off the mark. This is how it appeared to me.

And, now that we've seen the direction of 4e, we know this is true. It was way off the mark! Sure, they were working on 4e. That's never really been a secret, though, as Monte Cook stated that they've always been working on 4e. The question becomes how far along was the 4e development. And, this was over a year ago. A year! And, things seem to indicate that the announcement was made about 6 months earlier than expected, so especially in August of last year, 4e speculation of an imminent announcement was way off.

So... I don't see where the lying could possibly be.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Oh, that had already been addressed so I thought we were going more general now.

But, here are the things that were said: 4e in the works, more miniature-centric, with a collectible aspect. A high up in WotC then emailed Eric saying that this information was way off the mark. This is how it appeared to me.

Well, this is how it appeared to me: 4e in the works, more miniature-centric, core rules scattered throughout numerous releases to increase necessary buying to have the core game, and a possible bowing out of the rpg industry.

(1) 4e in the works: They were working on 4e. Bang-on.

[EDIT: And from reactions on EN World, this seems to be the thing most folks thought was being scooped, and most folks thought the WotC denied....until, of course, 4e was officially announced.]

(2) More minature-centric: What I have read of the previews thus far indicates to me that 4e will be more mini-centric than 3e. Already mentioned are the movement rates of the Spined Devil. In addition, some of the "Combat Roles" described seem to be more mini-centric (Controller [EDIT: I couldn't locate the original Character Roles thread, so I might have misnamed this one. Anyone?]) as do some of the special abilities mentioned. In 3e you could ignore 5-foot-steps and AoOs if you wanted, and not worry about minis at all. In 4e, some core abilities seem to be about moving opponents 5 feet. I fail to see how that's going to play out well without minis.

[EDIT: The adoption of the Delve Format just before the announcement of 4e, combined with the exclusive inclusion of the Delve Format in the DI is another example of mini-centricism, IMHO.]

Of course, WotC's market research for 3e indicated that getting D&D players to buy minis would lead to a serious increase in profit, so this is hardly surprising.

I call this bang-on.

(3) core rules scattered throughout numerous releases to increase necessary buying to have the core game: If the DI material is Core (as WotC has said), then this is true. Small releases of core material, on a monthly basis, for a small fee. In addition, we are told that there will be additional PHB, DMG, and MM releases which will be core. Nowhere in Eric's post do I see anything about collectability (although people were indeed concerned that this was the direction WotC was going in), so this seems correct to me also.

(4) Giving up RPGS: No evidence for this one.

Now, had WotC said that (4) was wrong, that would be one thing. But if you read Eric's post, you will see that this is not what they said. They said, according to Eric, that his information was so far off that it seemed like someone was trying to torpedo his reputation.

Now, if I gave you word-of-mouth information, and I was this close, I wouldn't expect someone to warn you that I might be trying to torpedo your reputation. That doesn't imply to me "There are some wrong things here"; that implies "This is so far off base that it has no contact with reality"......and it apparently had the same implication to Eric, because he decided to get out of the 4e scoop business.

Again, interested parties can see http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=170633

It seems to me that this was certainly "something intended or serving to convey a false impression".

And, regarding the other debunking, saying in response to a question about 4e that WotC intends to support 3.5 though 2008 isn't untrue, but it does seem intended to convey a false impression to me. YMMV, and obviously does.

RC

 

[Kesh]

As broghammerj said, that's going to happen regardless.

The quote in question was regarding "releasing news on 4e too early." (emphasis mine) Yes, there's going to be some loss of sales, however, the earlier you build up the hype, the more current sales will be lost in anticipation of the new product.

Staying quiet and not answering questions might be the best way to keep 3e products selling. The more people are anticipating 4e, the less 3e might sell. They have a lot of time to build up anticipation for 4e; no real need for a push before Christmas, I think. Mid-January would probably be the best time to start releasing real information, after the holidays. For now, keeping 3e sales up is still important.

Now this sounds right on the money. I hadn't thought about holiday sales, but it makes sense.