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

[ColonelHardisson]

You are totally right. I have this near sick compulsion to feed the trolls. I need to feed the happy elves intstead.

Thanks

You're welcome. Really. I wanna like the new edition. I like a lot of what I've read so far. There are certainly some things I'd like to know more about, but I'm a patient person. However, I'd also like to be able to influence, even in a small way, how the new edition goes forward, or at least know that my voice was heard even if things go another direction. That's all I ask for.

 

[Piratecat]

I don't know if my post was part of the problem.

It wasn't, it was really quite good. Proximity doesn't necessarily indicate cause.

 

[Nifft]

You are totally right. I have this near sick compulsion to feed the trolls. I need to feed the happy elves intstead.

Thanks

Feed the bipolar penguins, too!

Cheers, -- N

 

[billd91]

Worse, there are development articles that make some doubt whether or not this game is being designed for them. Mr. Mearls, for example, when talking about encounter design, seems to imaginine that 3.5 is suitable only for the use of single monsters in encounters. This flies in the face of the experience of many DMs and players, and is bound to make some concerned about how this new game will function, if our understandings of the old game is so divergent. I have the same problem with Mr. Wyatt's suggestion that adding per-encounter abilities will end the 9-9:15 adventuring day problem.

Divergent understandings of the old game? This is nothing new. Gamers have always had divergent understandings of the game regardless of years of experience. This very fact generates hundreds of discussions about whether or not to follow RAW or interpretation, whether or not someone is having badwrongfun, what is the best way to play, and so on.
Quite frankly, I expect other gamers to have a different take on the D&D game than I have. The important questions are: Can I have fun with the game the designers produce? As much fun as I'm having with the current version? If the answer to those questions is yes, then it doesn't matter that their take on the previous edition was different from mine.

 

[Doug McCrae]

What kills me is that you seem to be paying way too much attention to those doing the crapping. Why not give some indication that those of us who are optimistic and positive (for the most part) about the impending new edition are being heard as well?

The squeaky wheel gets the grease.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Except that the OP

I wasn't aware that Scott Rouse's comments applied only to the OP. If that is the case, then you are correct -- only what the OP said/did is relevant. However, one must then wonder why Mr. Rouse refers to the OP in the plural.

And while it is true that we've gotten a lot more information since then, a comparison of what was available with 3.0 shows that it is not nearly as much based on release date. There are obviously limits to what the designers can say, and IMHO it is equally obvious that those limits are greater than the limits on what 3.0's designers could say.

Who do you address if you view this to be a problem? The whole idea behind the term "faceless corporation" is that you don't know who to address. So, while the people who set those limits may be "some of the very people posting on these blogs" we certainly don't know this. We don't know who to address.

Assuming that "They can't tell us everything yet" means "They can't answer specific concerns" demonstrates a common fallacy: that of the excluded middle. There is a wide range between telling us everything and what they have told us. The release of 3.0 demonstrates this quite clearly, IMHO.

But you seem to know that "Sharing a lot doesn't equal sharing everything." You just seem to equate "not knowing who to address with a complaint" with "a Morley-smoking Cancer Man having a late-night meeting with Deep Throat", which is a whole 'nother issue.

And, I agree with you that it is "important to remember that those who complain the loudest are rarely in the majority".....I certainly hope WotC has taken that into account in relation to certain loud complaints about current and past D&D rules.

Anyone trying to sell anything has to take their customer base into account. When a campaign intended to "excite and engage" the customer base isn't having the desired effect, it is more effective to alter the campaign than to complain about the customers. This isn't some weird "anti-corporate vibe"; this is common sense.

I guess I wasn't clear enough with my conclusion: I doubt very much that there is a gamer alive who doesn't hope every new product is a "must have" that transforms their gaming experience to the better. This is an audience that wants to be sold.

Not every concern is worth addressing; as I said earlier, doing so would be a full-time job, probably for several people. That doesn't mean that there are not some specific concerns that are worth addressing.

YMMV, and obviously does.


RC

 

[Klaus]

What kills me is that you seem to be paying way too much attention to those doing the crapping. Why not give some indication that those of us who are optimistic and positive (for the most part) about the impending new edition are being heard as well? I'd try to post a list of thoughtful questions and desires for the new edition if I thought you'd read it.

I agree with the Colonel.

While the noise may be louder, there's signal to be received from the boards.

Listen to rational complaints and worries, but don't dwell on rants.

 

[Henry]

And while it is true that we've gotten a lot more information since then, a comparison of what was available with 3.0 shows that it is not nearly as much based on release date. There are obviously limits to what the designers can say, and IMHO it is equally obvious that those limits are greater than the limits on what 3.0's designers could say.

RC, are you saying that the first two issues of Dragon dealing with the 3E release told us far more than what we know about 4E to date? The only thing I remember was the existance of feats, those little "10 ways to play 3E right now" which were VERY generalized, and a discussion of what classes made the cut. That's really about all we have right now, in truth -- except we have the Book of Nine Swords and the Star Wars Saga games to tell us a whole lot of other things, as well -- like the basic concept of the Defense scores, the Second Wind (which was later confirmed), changing from feet to squares for move rates, etc.

We really do have a lot more info than people realize, it's just not spelled out in succinct laws, and it really wasn't in 3E either, until the last couple of months.

 

[Raven Crowking]

RC, are you saying that the first two issues of Dragon dealing with the 3E release told us far more than what we know about 4E to date?

<snip>

We really do have a lot more info than people realize, it's just not spelled out in succinct laws, and it really wasn't in 3E either, until the last couple of months.

I've been re-reading the Dragons leading up to the 3e release, and, based upon the distance to release, I would say that we had more in 3e. Or, perhaps it might be fairer to say that what we had in 3e allowed us to get excited about specifics, and answered specific concerns.

For example, when Clerical Domains first got mentioned, it was against a context of 2e specialty priests. This naturally led to some confusion. A letter got printed in Dragon wherein specific questions were raised, and an answer was given that dealt with those specific concerns.

I think WotC would be well served by doing a "Q-and-A" type column where (like pre-3E Dragon used the letters column) they get to select what "letters" see "print", and then answer the most common concerns as far as they are able.

They might have good reasons for not doing so; if so, I don't know what they are.

RC

 

[diaglo]

Feed the bipolar penguins, too!

Cheers, -- N

and the curmudgeon grognards.

don't forget us.