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

[WyzardWhately]

I don't have a problem with Wizards restricting their information. Heck it beats the near radio-silence of the pre-Internet days when we waited for every months Dragon and the latest "official" pronouncements. However, I do think that the information flow could be more transparent and could give us a few more details.

I don't think the objection here, although we're phrasing it that way a lot, is that WotC has a positive duty to tell us everything we want to know. The real objection is that the stuff they are giving us is potentially disingenuous, and definitely calculated more to manipulate than to inform. Now, this is what marketing is essentially FOR, and WotC is all grown up now and they can have marketing people if they want to. But this is a hobby so small and tightly-bound that we historically have a lot of interaction between the producers and consumers. There are, if you will, matters of loyalty to designers AND brands that are closely bound to the gamer heart. And, when our producers suddenly turn and start throwing pre-digested pap at us instead of A: having a genuine conversation or B: Telling us that they can't talk about it yet, we are feeling a little ill-used.

 

[Umbran]

Now, that doesn't necessarily PRECLUDE the game from living up to the hype, but it is pretty skeevy in such a small, tightly-bound, dare I say intimate hobby.

In saying "intimate", I think you dare too much.

EN World has nigh 55,000 registered users. The last numbers i saw quoted for the overall player base was from data now nearly a decade old, but it in the 1 to 3 million range.

There is no way that WotC has an "intimate" relationship with millions of people. The internet gives us access to a lot of information, so that we may be fooled into thinking we know each other better than we do. There is nothing skeevy about having a plan when trying to communicate with tens of thousands of people at once.

 

[gizmo33]

In saying "intimate", I think you dare too much.

Yea, maybe not in terms of numbers, but it's intimate in terms of how much work individuals put into DnD in order to turn WotC's rulebooks into a game. WotC's rulebooks are not a game, they're not *the* game. The game is that thing that people are playing, and it is heavily dependant on input from each of us. The contributions of WotC and of us as individuals are intimately intertwined in the final product, which is the adventure being run at the table. The rules will affect my homebrew, affect people's PCs, and may or may not conform to my opinion about "what works" which is not insignificant compared to the experience that WotC brings.

 

[Varianor Abroad]

It's also intimate in terms of how much gamers squawk their displeasure at the slightest suggestion of a rule, fact, descriptive sentence or even misplaced punctuation mark that might fall outside their personal vision. So to put forth the notion that "intimacy" = "right to advance knowledge" is questionable at best.

Put differently, how would you suggest Wizards release data without getting a huge negative set of rants?

None of this changes the fact that I personally would like to see more knowledge before it's enshrined in print. However, I don't blame folks for being silent. Perhaps if Wizards had a more "top-level" overview, like the Design Diaries that Monte Cook made popular, it might assuage gamers. Or it might not.

 

[gizmo33]

It's also intimate in terms of how much gamers squawk their displeasure at the slightest suggestion of a rule, fact, descriptive sentence or even misplaced punctuation mark that might fall outside their personal vision. So to put forth the notion that "intimacy" = "right to advance knowledge" is questionable at best.

Nobody's squawking. I think that's disrespectful, but I'm not even exactly sure what the animal noise metaphor suggests. There are plenty of concerns posted and they're not all animal-noise related. Basically, it advances nothing in the conversation to assume the worst case scenario. If someone is being rude or vague in what they're saying, then that's a problem independant of the general category of what it is they are complaining about, and doesn't make the case either way IMO. In other words - if someone walks up to the counter at McDs and screams at the cashier that he would like a lobster, that's not a condemnation of the principle that customers ought to be able to order what they want.

Put differently, how would you suggest Wizards release data without getting a huge negative set of rants?

The one is a statement and the other is a question so I don't see how one is putting the other one differently unless the question is rhetorical. But I don't think the question is rhetorical and there are probably tons of ways to request feedback on design issues. Software companies do this all of the time with major releases of development environments/software. They ship out beta versions, get feedback, make modifications, etc. I'm not an IP lawyer, and I don't have to pay WotCs salaries, so what I generally feel could be possible would have to be developed by people with the experience and money to do so.

And in the end, there are still going to be cranks complaining about things. But not even trying because of a few cranks IMO is overly sensitive for a public company. The bulk of the population could probably be tapped for input in a constructive way by people who were knowledgable in doing so.

None of this changes the fact that I personally would like to see more knowledge before it's enshrined in print. However, I don't blame folks for being silent. Perhaps if Wizards had a more "top-level" overview, like the Design Diaries that Monte Cook made popular, it might assuage gamers. Or it might not.

Take the OGL for instance. Do you "blame" pre-3E game designers for not having done something like this? I'm sure they have their reasons for why they didn't do it. What is worth it? I guess that depends on what their priorities were/are. Certainly there are down-sides to the OGL, but it's really a matter of what your priorities are.

WotC and the industry in general is not infallible. So are they doing everything right in terms of getting community input for the new game? I doubt it, just based on probabilities. They'll have to be smart about how they do this stuff, but if Hasbro can't tell the difference between RPGs and board games in terms of the way the consumer is involved, I would think they would need to understand that first (realizing of course, that no one from WotC is involved in this question of whether or not customer input is important AFAIK).

 

[BadMojo]

There is nothing skeevy about having a plan when trying to communicate with tens of thousands of people at once.

I don't think having "talking points" is skeevy either, but it has been a little heavy handed so far. It doesn't make me angry, it just seems a little silly sometimes.

Maybe we were all spoiled by the closer relationship between the designers and WotC in general and EnWorld. Back in the day, it was cool but not shocking to see Anthony V., Monte Cook, Ryan Dancey, etc. post here on EnWorld in a candid and organic way. Things now seem a lot more distanced, premeditated and for lack of a better word, corporate.

I'm still OK with just waiting for 4E, taking a look at it and then deciding if I like it or not.

FWIW, I don't necessarily think designers have said that major things are going to change now that the PHB has gone to layout. Bug fixes from playtest and flavor stuff, but I don't rememebr anyone saying there were going to be major rules changes at this point.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

it is pretty skeevy in such a small, tightly-bound, dare I say intimate hobby.

PR is inherently skeevy?

Because I worked PR for a videogame company that you know, and we absolutely were required to prepare talking points for everyone, just to prevent trouble later on when something changed and people went nuts because the Whoosits is gone, and YOU LIED, OMG! (We'd been through that exact problem more than once.)

 

[Henry]

They have actually already released a pretty good amount of mechanical information, if truth be told:

--Levels 1 through 30 to be included in the game
--Saves are now static "defenses", target numbers you hit with a d20 + adds roll
--The 8 classes to be in the game
--The core mechanic of the d20 stays the same
--The names and "levels" of several; of the monsters, such as Owlbears, Satyrs, Runecarved Eidolons (whatever they heck those are), etc.
--Each class will have some at will, per encounter, and per day resources to manage
--Tieflings will be one of the player races, as will Eladrin, Dwarves, and Elves

Plus a whole bunch of non-mechanical info, such as the changes to the planes, changes to the FR setting, Changes to the social interaction systems of the game, etc. That's a pretty good amount of info for all of two months in. (October 16th in fact will be just at two months since the announcement.)

 

[Mercule]

They have actually already released a pretty good amount of mechanical information, if truth be told:

I was thinking the same thing.

C'mon, people. WotC isn't going to give away the books. They'll be giving a bunch of info over the next several months, but May is seven months -- over half a year -- away, still. They're balancing our interest in their product with the time frame over which they have to dole out the information.

The alternative is either to announce and then go pretty much silent for nine months or to announce two or so months before the release. I see both of those being a whole lot more annoying and the later would certainly be considered corporate money-grabbing by most people.

 

[Twowolves]

Yeah, it would certainly be better to give rules specifics that haven't seen their final version, then have the fans scream and piss about how they were lied to and how WoTC never tells them the truth about anything. Be glad they bother to tell you as much as they have.

"You'll get nothing and like it!"