Review of 4E on Aint It Cool News

[Mouseferatu]

Grognards typically don't like it

Given that Massawyrm's been playing long enough to qualify--since 1E--I'm not sure that statement holds true for this particular discussion.

 

[Sir Brennen]

The feats are split up according to what tier they become available, which removes some of the frustration my players had during feat selection (every two levels now!)

I wonder about this from a usablitly perspective. It's like in older editions with spell descriptions grouped by class/level instead of all together alphabetically. Easier to peruse when updating the character sheet at level-up, not so good for referencing during actual play. Having a Feats-by-Tier table and then all feats alphabetically would suffice for me.

(Been playing since 1980, and chaff at grognard stereotyping...)

 

[Massawyrm]

Not much of a review but then I didn't really expect one given the source. This seemed to be just more of the love fest that I expected. I find it really really hard to believe that the ONLY problem with the game is that it didn't include a few monsters. I'm not saying that he doesn't really like the game but I expect a more critical review (in the sense that it is looked at objectively, not necessarily harshly) before I am willing to take it seriously.

This isn't the review - this is my opinion on the final printing. It is actually a followup to the 7000wd 3-part review I posted three months ago. Before you use a phrase like "considering the source" you might, you know, want to know a little more about the source...

 

[Massawyrm]

I wonder about this from a usablitly perspective. It's like in older editions with spell descriptions grouped by class/level instead of all together alphabetically. Easier to peruse when updating the character sheet at level-up, not so good for referencing during actual play. Having a Feats-by-Tier table and then all feats alphabetically would suffice for me.

The original setup was alphabetical. it was a P-A-I-N. When looking for feats, players would often find the perfect feat, go to write it down then discover it was paragon level. Many an exasperated sigh was heard during level up sessions at feat gaining levels.

But keep in mind that feats are much, much simpler now. Looking them up is something of a rarity.

 

[LordArchaon]

That is disappointing to find about trap creation, but I'm hoping they'll be created much the same way as monsters. The statblocks look awfully similar. There's even an XP value.

It's a shame because I was hoping to make more use of traps this edition, especially when I heard the Rogue will not be necessary to bypass them.

Same here, disappointed, but not so much. I even think we could find more info on D&D Insider, without having to wait for DMG2, but nonetheless traps must be easy as hell to hack. They're much like a mix of monster and skill challenge crunch.

About sacred cows, I'm not at all concerned since I'm sure I will be creating 'zounds of monsters with so easy rules and fast process. It's really only a matter of imagination now, no more math verifying, balancing, testing, and splatbook digging.

 

[Brown Jenkin]

This isn't the review - this is my opinion on the final printing. It is actually a followup to the 7000wd 3-part review I posted three months ago. Before you use a phrase like "considering the source" you might, you know, want to know a little more about the source...

Funny, given the name of this thread and the name of the news article combined with the format of the article. Looks alot like a review to me. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck I will go ahead and call it a duck.

As for knowing the source, I read the original 3 part series, which is where I am drawing my conclusions from. Lets see, you were one of the playtesters (or is that rules familiarity playing, since Mouseferatu has come out and said you guys wern't doing real playtesting) and were one of only 2 to 3 out-of-house people giiven permission to post any comments about the system. Even though this permission was granted it was still followed up by a just in case email requesting that no comments about problems be included in talking about the system. I am not saying that you have allowed WotC have editorial control, but more that WotC knew ahead of time what kind of comments you would likely print if you were given an excemption from the NDA. I also noted that no mention of the facts of the exemption were mentioned in the first review or this one, which would have helped your credibility as a reviewer. I do believe though that you really do love the game, which is mostly where the given the source comment came from. I think that you love the game so much that you may not be the best source to provide an unbiased review.

Feel free to enlighten me further about the source. I don't think you are a bad person in general and would be happy to hear more about your perspective on why you think you are unbiased on this issue.

By the way, this is real question and not an attempt at baiting. Are you now completely released from the NDA and the followup email? I thought that that wouldn't occur until June 6th. If so, is it just you are are all playtesters released now as well?

 

[Massawyrm]

Lets see, you were one of the playtesters (or is that rules familiarity playing, since Mouseferatu has come out and said you guys wern't doing real playtesting)

We playtested the system. There were a number of comments made from our games that found themselves in later playtest copies and were eventually addressed.

Even though this permission was granted it was still followed up by a just in case email requesting that no comments about problems be included in talking about the system.

Heh, I've heard about that E-mail. it was internal, sent to game developers and freelancers. I never got one, nor was it intimated.

I am not saying that you have allowed WotC have editorial control, but more that WotC knew ahead of time what kind of comments you would likely print if you were given an excemption from the NDA.

This is true. I approached them. I played the game, loved the out of it and was sick of all the negative stories and bitching about it. So I got clearence from my boss to write about it and contacted WotC to get released from the NDA. I wanted to write a story that told people "Hey there's a guy out there that played it and he loves the out of it. maybe there's hope afterall."

I also noted that no mention of the facts of the exemption were mentioned in the first review or this one, which would have helped your credibility as a reviewer.

Well, to be honest, we had no idea this would spread so wide into the gaming forums. I thought it would get some notice in the community, but not the size and scope that it did. So I assumed my seven years of honest reviewing at the site was pretty much all the credibility I needed over there.

I think that you love the game so much that you may not be the best source to provide an unbiased review.

I think this is where the real problem is coming in. You have to be very careful with the word unbiased around journos or critics. It intimates something completely different than what I now think you're actually saying. What you seem to want is a more balanced review, one that spends as much time picking nits as it does celebrating them. My review was completely unbiased. I wasn't paid by WotC, I don't work or freelance for them, my friends weren't on the project and I gain zero benefit if the game succeeds or fails. And since we never covered gaming before, it wasn't like I needed the story. I just wanted to write it. I'm just some dude who played it and liked it. A lot. I have zero bias. But I also won't argue that it is the most balanced review.

By the way, this is real question and not an attempt at baiting. Are you now completely released from the NDA and the followup email? I thought that that wouldn't occur until June 6th. If so, is it just you are are all playtesters released now as well?

Wotc completely released me from my NDA with the agreement that i wouldn't post the type of info that would allow people to play the game in the articles - stat blocks or full, clear rule descriptions, etc. I gave them a courtesy heads up e-mail about yesterdays story, but they had no idea it was coming, nor did they know the content. I'm not certain what the rules for everyone else are.

 

[Mouseferatu]

You also may want to go back and look over some of Massawyrm's movie reviews. You'll learn quick that if he's got anything negative that he wants to say, he does not hold back from saying it.

 

[Massawyrm]

Why sir, I believe you are understating things just a tad.

Maybe you should point him to my BRATZ review. Everyone likes me after they've read my BRATZ review.

 

[Brown Jenkin]

We playtested the system. There were a number of comments made from our games that found themselves in later playtest copies and were eventually addressed.

From http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=220628&page=5
See below for comments on your playtesting

Glad to be of service.

Seriously, if the game isn't pounded into the dirt in playtesting, then the playtesting isn't doing it's job.

.

True. But my group wasn't selected for playtesting. I got them NDAed as playtesters because I had to learn the rules to write for the game. So while we gave substantial feedback to WotC, that wasn't our primary goal.

This is true. I approached them. I played the game, loved the out of it and was sick of all the negative stories and bitching about it. So I got clearence from my boss to write about it and contacted WotC to get released from the NDA. I wanted to write a story that told people "Hey there's a guy out there that played it and he loves the out of it. maybe there's hope afterall."

Sounds like bias to me. That is not a review that is one person being insulted that people are dissing something he loves and is trying to get back at them. Revenge as motivation is bias, as well as the original bias that has you loving something so much that you feel the need to defend it.

I think this is where the real problem is coming in. You have to be very careful with the word unbiased around journos or critics. It intimates something completely different than what I now think you're actually saying. What you seem to want is a more balanced review, one that spends as much time picking nits as it does celebrating them. My review was completely unbiased. I wasn't paid by WotC, I don't work or freelance for them, my friends weren't on the project and I gain zero benefit if the game succeeds or fails. And since we never covered gaming before, it wasn't like I needed the story. I just wanted to write it. I'm just some dude who played it and liked it. A lot. I have zero bias. But I also won't argue that it is the most balanced review.

I stand by my use of the term biased. I don't expect a 50-50 split of positive and negative. But a review that is 100% positive is not really a review. There is bias if you love something so much that you had to defend it against attacks by others. As for bias as conflict of interest, the potential for that is there and should have been disclosed. As Mouseferatu states, he got your group in as playtesters so that he could learn the rules so that he could write for the game. Having a close friend who has a financial stake in something could be considered a conflict of interest. This certainly appears to me that a conflict of interest could be at work here. Even if there isn't, the appearance of a conflict can be just as bad as real one and should absolutely be disclosed by a reviewer or journalist.

You also may want to go back and look over some of Massawyrm's movie reviews. You'll learn quick that if he's got anything negative that he wants to say, he does not hold back from saying it.

I didn't say he couldn't do negative, just that he was biased.

Why sir, I believe you are understating things just a tad.

Maybe you should point him to my BRATZ review. Everyone likes me after they've read my BRATZ review.

Sorry to disappoint. I actually had a higher regard for you before reading that review. I was actually so horrified and disgusted that I almost quit half way through. I would not recommend you pointing to that again as something to make people like you. Well at least I know not to read anymore of your stuff.