D&D 4E Should WotC take a Step Back and Reevaluate 4E?

[KarinsDad]

We are starting to get more ambivalent (for lack of a better word) opinions from some people who have actually played 4E. For example, the recent discussion with Jason Bulmahn, or the recent posts by Rodrigo Istalindir.

It occurs to me that if 4E was the greatest coming in RPGs like advertised, that we would not see these types of reports where they say that they liked a few things, but overall disliked many others and had a so so experience. 4E should not be about so so experiences.

The people going to D&D Experience are mostly hard core gamers, game designers, and game reporters. And although we are getting a few cheerleader reports (like Massawyrm who really won't say a bad word about 4E except that it doesn't have everything he wants in it, hence, I take such reports that do not even try to be somewhat objective with a grain of salt), we are also getting some reports that are not so optimistic.

So, should WotC re-evaluate the game? Granted, this would mean a hit in the release, but it seems like there are some fundamental issues that should be addressed.

Do we really want a 4.5 edition in 3 years, just so that we can get on hands on the "somewhat not as wonderful" version in June?

 

[Carnivorous_Bean]

The problem is, that Rodrigo actually liked a lot of stuff in the game. It's just that, for some reason, he forgot to mention it in his review , and added it in a reply to his original post, where it's very easy to miss.

Secondly, I doubt that they will redo the entire edition because of one sample combat at 1st level. The purpose of the D&D experience is advertising, first and foremost. It's not a comprehensive preview of the rules.

Personally, I think -- and I should know, because it fits my personality, too , I'm not accusing anyone here -- that roleplayers, especially the vocal ones, are extremely critical and look for any tiny flaw to magnify and pick at ad nauseum. So if they listened to every complaint, they'd never be done with any edition of any game, because someone would always passionately hate some aspect of anything they did. The only way they should change something, IMO, is if at least 75% of the playtesters loathe it.

 

[Hussar]

Well, we're always going to have people who don't like a given system. I guess a better metric might be to look at how people overall reacted, rather than buttonhole one or two opinions in either direction.

I smell a poll in the near future.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Can you post links (or just point in the general direction) to the more balanced discussions/reviews you mention in your post?

 

[JeffB]

Heh..I hope you have your flame suit on hand


Fanboys in 3....2....1....





Seriously, ANY incarnation of the game has had people who love it, people who hate it, and people who are neutral about. Thats life..with anything. WOTC is targeting the biggest marketshare...of which I am no longer a part of.

It seems to me that the 3E and 4E design teams are just people who never much cared for the original games , the kids I used to play with who had to have 25 pages of house rules and whose tastes differed from the intent/spirit of those early versions. They (WOTC) have remade it to appeal to the younger generation and different style of gamer than I am, and they will do well with it.

Face it..selling a silly make believe game of warriors and wizards and dragons to people in their late 30s, 40s and beyond is ALOT harder than selling to tweens,teens and twenty-somethings

 

[Doug McCrae]

No, because that would be stupid.

There is nothing in this world that everyone likes, not even heroin.

Some people won't like 4e. That's okay. It would be weird, and somewhat scary, if everyone liked it. In fact that would be a pretty good sign that you were in a dream. Or the Twilight Zone.

You dismiss positive reviews... for being too positive. And claim that two negative opinions mean WotC should re-evaluate the whole project. That's... bizarre.

 

[Piratecat]

Not only have I seen no sign a reevaluation is needed, it would be business and corporate suicide. I could hardly think of a worse strategy for them to pursue. So, in my opinion, no.

Doug, don't turn this into a personal attack, please. Discuss the substance of the post, not the person behind it.

 

[KarinsDad]

Can you post links (or just point in the general direction) to the more balanced discussions/reviews you mention in your post?

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=220403
http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=220320

Of special concern to me was:

While the "Encounter" and "Daily" powers on the sheet were interesting, it seemed like PCs were once more reduced to "doing the same thing over and over again" after they had burned through them, something that the 4e designers had at least ostensibly attempted to avoid.

...

Jason asserted that it often seemed as if PCs were either "coasting" through adventuring challenges in the new edition, or "completely terrified" by foes that wildly overmatched them.

Again, there were a lot of ongoing conditions to track, and saves to remember, and the stuck until after your next move and take more damage if someone else moving to help you trips a trap wasn't fun, and I could tell several of the players were getting a bit frustrated.

There seemed to be two rooms that were frustrating (this one, and the one with the dragon). It would seem like WotC would put their best encounters into D&D Experience, not lame ones.

Rodrigo's second post in his thread has quite a few game mechanic elements that he had issues with.

 

[Nymrohd]

What I noticed in Jason Bulmahn's comments was that they had a 40 round combat. Sure several of those rounds must have been similar. But a fight against the dragon finally lasted some minutes instead of some seconds.

 

[KarinsDad]

You dismiss positive reviews... for being too positive. And claim that two negative opinions mean WotC should re-evaluate the whole project. That's... bizarre.

I'm a middle of the road kind of guy. When looking at data, I throw out the extremes and evaluate the stuff in the middle.

Extremist views are skewed and untrustworthy.

And, I did not claim that they should re-evaluate the whole project as in scrap it. I'm discussing a delay to address valid concerns from their Beta test (granted, they consider it a marketing exercise, but it's really a Beta, regardless of them doing nothing with the data outside of Erratta).