Six Blind Men and the Fourth Edition....

[Kahuna Burger]

This isn't a thread about what we think of 4e so far.... it's more about the way the info we have has been revealed. Frankly, it's annoying me.

All the teasing bits of playtests, with various terms used but not explained, this or that name of a feat which might have something to do with the example names used in another area, piecing together what was done in Eberron or Bo9S or Saga, ambiguous snippets of info that may or may not actually be in the end product... It's like the story of blind men examining an elephant, but to no purpose that I can see.

What do you think of the advertising/informational strategy that's being used? (And while I personally do think it's a strategy, I suppose whether the ambiguity is deliberate or not is a legitimate point of discussion as well.) Do you enjoy piecing together the snippets and guessing at the meaning of new terms thrown into feats and playtests reports? Or has it gotten old? Or perhaps you feel that it's the only way it could be going if they are letting out any info?

Again, this thread isn't about what you think of the elephant or what you think it looks like, but about the strategy of finding out what it looks like by sending six blind men who only get to touch one part each.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

I dislike it enough to have quoted you in my sig.

(And didn't correct your five to six. If only they had that sixth man, maybe it would all be clear.)

 

[Umbran]

Well, we should note that this pattern is nothing new. We were playing with similar puzzle pieces back on Eric Noah's original site. If it is a planned strategy, it isn't one that's changed much in form.

Before I consider whether I like this mode of information flow, I have to state that I don't think there is any other mode that would make sense for WotC, other than simply holding all information close to their chests until the actual release. I'm open to suggestions of how else they might have gone about it that would have been better for us, and still made business sense for them, but I've yet to hear one.

That being said, I find this mode to be fun. I suppose it excites the part of me that likes assembling jigsaw puzzle, in alliance with the part that then likes to speculate along logical lines. Working with the bits we hear is an entertainment in and of itself.

Mind you, I am the sort of person that can play the elephant game, and at the same time hold off final judgement until I see the real thing. I take the elephant game's results with a hefty grain of salt, and don't consider it biding on WotC in any way.

 

[JohnSnow]

All the teasing bits of playtests, with various terms used but not explained, this or that name of a feat which might have something to do with the example names used in another area, piecing together what was done in Eberron or Bo9S or Saga, ambiguous snippets of info that may or may not actually be in the end product... It's like the story of blind men examining an elephant, but to no purpose that I can see.

But the purpose is exactly what you called out in the first phrase - to be teasers for the completed game. Fourth Edition releases in 6 months! All they've been doing to date is providing teasers in order to get people talking. As we get closer to release, we'll get snippets that are more like a movie trailer - letting us see the barest skeleton of the big picture.

It's pretty typical marketing - teaser > snippet > glimpse > preview > release. For the last few months, we've been getting teasers. Now we'll start getting snippets. We should get our first glimpse at D&D Experience in early February. Then we'll get previews in February, March and April, culminating in the release of Keep on the Shadowfell.

Up until now, they've been trying to build buzz. And, from the amount people are talking, it's working. Now, they're trying to give us snippets to tantalize us. Over the next 6 months, we should start getting more.

Think back to the release of Iron Heroes or Third Edition - we got about 6 months worth of hard teasers. At this point, we've just BARELY gotten inside that time window. So I'm okay with the amount of info we have to date.

EDIT: Like Umbran, I too enjoy the elephant game, but don't consider any conclusions I reach binding on WotC. I guess for people who don't enjoy the elephant game, this type of marketing strategy can be very frustrating.

 

[Nebulous]

That being said, I find this mode to be fun. I suppose it excites the part of me that likes assembling jigsaw puzzle, in alliance with the part that then likes to speculate along logical lines. Working with the bits we hear is an entertainment in and of itself.

Mind you, I am the sort of person that can play the elephant game, and at the same time hold off final judgement until I see the real thing. I take the elephant game's results with a hefty grain of salt, and don't consider it biding on WotC in any way.

I enjoy it too. I like to read other's speculation more than input my own (because frankly, there are people here who play D&D more than me and know rules better) but i still find the whole process fun. I can't blame WotC for handing out this info piecemeal. For one, it's still in flux, and more importantly i think it builds up tremendous anticipation for their product. And it's also neat to see which educated guesses were right and which were wrong come next June.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

Before I consider whether I like this mode of information flow, I have to state that I don't think there is any other mode that would make sense for WotC, other than simply holding all information close to their chests until the actual release. I'm open to suggestions of how else they might have gone about it that would have been better for us, and still made business sense for them, but I've yet to hear one.

Well, without a marketing degree, I'm not going to speculate on business sense, but how about if they want to tell us about "Combat Advantage" just tell us about it, and if they don't want to tell us what Combat Advantage is, then pick a different feat example or playtest snippet without it? There is a middle ground between holding all info close to their chests and saying "oooh, look at this important thing that we will make some implications about but not actually explain! Dance, DANCE for your new edition!!!!"

 

[Voss]

Pretty standard internet marketing, really. A few tidbits, a lot of 'MYSTARY!' to stir up the audience. Couple it with the 'not quite done' factor, and it isn't really surprising or extraordinary, especially when they can dampen any fires with the 'well, you haven't seen the whole system yet' line. Or better yet, let the enthusiasts take on the doubters on their behalf. Cheap, inexpensive marketing.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

This isn't a thread about what we think of 4e so far.... it's more about the way the info we have has been revealed. Frankly, it's annoying me.

All the teasing bits of playtests, with various terms used but not explained, this or that name of a feat which might have something to do with the example names used in another area, piecing together what was done in Eberron or Bo9S or Saga, ambiguous snippets of info that may or may not actually be in the end product... It's like the story of blind men examining an elephant, but to no purpose that I can see.

What do you think of the advertising/informational strategy that's being used? (And while I personally do think it's a strategy, I suppose whether the ambiguity is deliberate or not is a legitimate point of discussion as well.) Do you enjoy piecing together the snippets and guessing at the meaning of new terms thrown into feats and playtests reports? Or has it gotten old? Or perhaps you feel that it's the only way it could be going if they are letting out any info?

Again, this thread isn't about what you think of the elephant or what you think it looks like, but about the strategy of finding out what it looks like by sending six blind men who only get to touch one part each.

I have mixed feelings about it.

I would like more solid information. I would love information that makes all my doubts go away and prove all naysayers wrong.

But on the other hand, the guessworks and the discussion that relate to it have sparked a lot of my (and others) imagination and creativity, and I absolutely love that.

So, I guess I am 65 % positive, 35 % negative...

 

[Wormwood]

This was all more fun in 2000.

I'm just stickin' around until I get the 4e version of Skurge Dwarfbane.

 

[Zaruthustran]

I've been enjoying the steady trickle of information. WotC can't release hard info because such info doesn't exist. The game is in development, even now, as Michele Carter's post illustrates (http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=213176&page=4&pp=30).

This was true at the time [the official Races & Classes preview booklet] was written, and as with a few other small details, it's changed since then.

The worst thing for them to do would be to release information about, say, a core mechanic, and then later (after playtesting) decide to change that mechanic. They'd suffer all the negatives of people howling about this or that (*any* change from 3e generates a base level of complaining), with zero benefit.

Instead, we've seen them release tidbits of overall design philosophies. Broad strokes. Deliberately vague information that sheds light on the larger issues. Really, this is the best we could hope for given that the rules themselves--the hard info that the OP seemingly wants--are still very much in flux.

Also, the effect of their strategy is that people speculate and discuss the various tidbits. This is what marketing people call "buzz", and it's a Good Thing for most any product. Side effect is that occasionally the community comes up with usable feedback (see the changes to Torm/Tyr, and the change in feat naming conventions) that makes its way into the current design.

So, what do I think of the advertising/informational strategy that's being used? I think it's about as good as it could possibly be, given the reality of the situation. If 4E was complete and printed then my answer would change. But the fact of the matter is that it's not complete and printed.