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

[Imaro]

First, this may speak to the strength of the rules. Second, they were a playtest group, and as such, probably had most of their rules issues actually addressed by the development team, leaving them with little to complain about. Third, the author specifically called out at the beginning that he wouldn't be going over any of the details, since he wanted the review to be about play experience, not about a breakdown of the crunch:

And....how does this in any way invalidate my bias against this review. Because he says upfront I will gush about it, but will not go into why it deserves this gushing in any detail? I find Aristotle's review a much more relevant "positive" review than I find Massawyrm's.

Note: Isn't Massawyrm, in Ari's group and thus (just like Ari) restricted in what he can actually say? I may be wrong about this so I'm asking.

 

[DamnedChoir]

I'm still blown away by how depressed people can be about how their favorite hobby is going away, and how vehement the defenders of their new messiah game are when the game hasn't even hit print yet.

For the record, it's a better way to judge something by looking through the negative reviews and evaluating if their arguments are logical and sound, and how /many/ negative views there are, rather than doing the same with the positive. Of course comparing them works too, but I've found that the positive reviews tend to be all good, (Say) no evil, and the bad ones tend to be 'This isn't 2E, I'm pissed' so...

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

That's an opinion based off an assumption of bias. Not a scientific assumption, just an assumption. Maybe high or low scores are related to between-subjects variables (person preferences, individual game experiences, etc.) And maybe, by ignoring reviews that don't fit your expectation of ambivalent objectivity, you are ignoring systematic variance that is potentially important.

Or maybe none of that is important. Maybe this is all just about personal decisions and preferences and expectations. Maybe we shouldn't be claiming that there is anything scientific about any of this, because there probably isn't.

Speaking as an actual scientist, there isn't. It's the same conjecture about the game we had on Wednesday, but with a few handy flags to wave in "support" of the conjecture. I'll trust Hong's opinion on the statistical validity of KD's claims, since he actually knows what he's talking about with respect to stats.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

And....how does this in any way invalidate my bias against this review. Because he says upfront I will gush about it, but will not go into why it deserves this gushing in any detail? I find Aristotle's review a much more relevant "positive" review than I find Massawyrm's.

Note: Isn't Massawyrm, in Ari's group and thus (just like Ari) restricted in what he can actually say? I may be wrong about this so I'm asking.

Because the review provides reasons why his opinion is so positive overall, and so it's not fair to characterize it as "gushing." He doesn't say that he will gush about it. He says that his experience was overwhelmingly positive despite reservations going into it.

Also, you may be right, and he might still be on the leash regarding actual crunch issues. That would, again, defend his review against your complaints that it lacks evaluation of rules details.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Hang on, what are we talking about here? How potential purchasers of 4e should respond to reviews or how WotC should respond to playtest feedback? Because the OP was talking about the latter.

As to the former, it seems pretty straightforward to me -
Just the facts. Look at the game's substance. Decide if it's something you'll like or not. Don't pay attention to value judgements unless you know the reviewer has the same tastes as you.

 

[JeffB]

Ha ha! That's great. Listening to some of these "WotC is pandering to [group of which I do not consider myself a member]" posts, you'd think that there was a finite quantity of quality, and that they needed to parcel it out between the various customer demographics.

Never said a damn thing about quality of the game. yeesh...

Dont like the style. Of 3E and now it seems of 4E. Had high hopes for both. They are designed by people and for people who don't have the same likes or wants in a game I do. Its a different style and generation of fantasy and a different type of game-play. I've not said one thing about it being immature or the quality isn't there. So please don't attribute that kind of BS to me.

I've never seen a more argumenttative site where people are lambasted for having the even slightest of differing opinions of the current direction/trend of the game or not being a fanboy of whatever is supposed to be cool and new. ENWORLD didn't USED to be like this (I've been here since before the 3E launch). It's gotten as bad as Dragonsfoot, in the opposite extreme.

 

[Piratecat]

This thread is a train wreck that's just getting worse. Wave goodbye.

Klunk.