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

[hong]

It's not extremist. It's scientific. Throwing out the extreme data points, even in a subjective experiment, is a valid statistical approach.

Right. And the 2 most extreme negative data points might be, for the sake of argument, Jason Bulmahn and Rodrigo Istalinnnnndir. The 2 most extreme positive data points might be the 2 AICN reviews. Which leaves you with a whole bunch of positive impressions in the middle.

 

[Ulthwithian]

Well, if you really want to discuss statistics...

Please throw out the extreme data points in the reviews. I contend that we have 3 basic groups of data points to consider. One group is 'very positive', one is 'positive', and one is 'ambivalent'. Since we have no out-and-out negative reviews, that means the 'ambivalent' reviews become the extreme low end of the sample under consideration, and by your argument should be removed. Thus, we should throw out 'very positive' and 'ambivalent', to be left with 'positive'.

Alternatively, we can generate data points based on the review. Give each review a score from, say, 1-10, and then generate an Xbar-R chart to determine whether or not there is a NEED to remove outliers, or indeed whether or not there ARE outliers.

 

[Wormwood]

It occurs to me that if 4E was the greatest coming in RPGs like advertised . . .

Full stop.

4e has been positioned as 3e with some annoying bits filed off---in an effort to make D&D faster game with fewer obstacles to fun.

That's all.

 

[Carnivorous_Bean]

It's not extremist. It's scientific. Throwing out the extreme data points, even in a subjective experiment, is a valid statistical approach.

One could also keep those data points in as well.

But it comes down to what type of data one is looking for: analyzed, or cheerleader, or total naysayer. The extremes of cheerleader and naysayer often tend to be of limited value, limited objectivity, and often have an agenda associated with them. Look at them, but take them with a grain of salt as potentially skewed and non-objective data.

Massawyrm's latest review, the third one, contains quite a few complaints. Overall, he likes 4e, but he hardly describes it as perfect.

Does he still count as an "extreme data point" in your book because he feels that 4e is overall positive, even though he acknowledges problems and even devotes nearly as much space to describing them as to enthusing? And describes parts of 4e as "sucking," and gives specific details of why he thinks the good things are good (for example, the ease of statting out balanced monsters, and the details of why it is easy). Yet overall, he likes 4e and thinks that it's a good game. Does the fact that he is overall positive, even though he dislikes (sometimes intensely) some fairly major design decision, mean that he's an "extreme data point?"

If anything that places 4e on the positive side of the balance is an 'extreme data point,' and anything that places it on the negative side of the balance as 'analyzed and impartial,' then I must respectfully disagree that such a method could be considered objective or scientific. That's more of, "if the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts," IMO.

It's fine to dislike 4e to the point where you discount any preponderantly positive review. It's a bit more shaky to claim that such discounting of all positive reviews is in some manner scientific.

 

[SSquirrel]

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.

It appears that WotC has put in things they think will be seen as "cool" rooms and examples to show off how you can craft an encounter to have more traps and such. Anecdotally, I haven't seen that many traps in a single CAMPAIGN let alone w/in 3 rooms of a dungeon. I will likely browse that encounter for some info on how the various traps work and such, but I don't see myself using any of those rooms. Maybe I'm in a minority that has never really enjoyed traps. Then again, so many of them just flat out killed you, and what fun is that? Except for the DM who is an old fire and brimstone type who sees it as his job to kill the players

 

[Wolfspider]

Wait until tens of thousands of people are playing the game and reacting to the experience, and then we'll have enough data to start making statistical judgements.

 

[Ulthwithian]

Wolf: At that point, the argument will shift to how the data was collected. Self-election, statistically meaningless polls, etc. etc. etc.

Seriously, while I'm sure WotC will listen to feedback, they need to watch for any extreme unduly influencing their PoV.

 

[Wormwood]

Wait until tens of thousands of people are playing the game and reacting to the experience, and then we'll have enough data to start making statistical judgements.

I'm going to have to agree with Wolfspider. Again.

It's been a looong week

 

[Sir Brennen]

It's not extremist. It's scientific. Throwing out the extreme data points, even in a subjective experiment, is a valid statistical approach.

One could also keep those data points in as well.

But it comes down to what type of data one is looking for: analyzed, or cheerleader, or total naysayer. The extremes of cheerleader and naysayer often tend to be of limited value, limited objectivity, and often have an agenda associated with them. Look at them, but take them with a grain of salt as potentially skewed and non-objective data.

Therein lies the rub. What distinguishes a cheerleader or naysayer review from an "analyzed" one? Writer's tone? How do you know that a glowingly positive review isn't done from a thorough and objective analysis of the information at hand? Same with a negative one. Can't a naysayer start his review with "I had no preconceived opinion on the game" to establish "credibility" and "objectivity" before rolling out all the negative assumptions supported by selective observation?

Does having a number of pro vs. con points really mean a balanced review? Do you read movie reviews and decide they're only on the level if they give both good and bad points about a movie? Is it possible to objectively review something and come back with several good impressions and no negative one worth mentioning?

Also, not all the gamers are professional columnists. Just the writing style of a review can predispose a reader to the credibility or bias of the writer. Those reading the reviews are *also* bringing their own filters and prejudices when they read it.

I mean, if you were to scour the messageboards (not just ENWorld) and blogosphere, do you think you could objectively and accurately sort out all the reviews between cheerleader, objective analysis and naysayer? And what about the opinions of people who haven't written a review?

 

[Psion]

To the OP's question: "When the avalanche has begun, it's too late for the pebbles to vote."

There are a few things I intensely dislike about 4e. But let's say that today, I was made business manager of D&D and had free reign to change whatever I want. The books are probably at the very least in proofs; instituting a round of changes that would rationally need a new round of playtesting would mean at least 6 months of delays. Business-wise, that'd be a poor decision, even if I think the result would be a better product with much broader appeal.

IMO, Rodrigo's review is no more or less objective than Massawyrm's review

Oh RLY?

Yeah, I pretty much thoroughly disagree with that assessment. Rodrigo doesn't savagely pan 4e the same way that Massawyrm slobberingly adores it, I'm afraid.