D&D 4E WotC and 4E Communication Feedback

[Iku Rex]

Some thoughts from Mr. Cranky-Pants, 3.X veteran

Here's what's wrong with your 4.0 communication: It's all one way. Threads like this are a good start, but I mean the communication about the actual game mechanics.

Right now the approach is the same as with the 3.5 edition. Proud game designers are showing of random parts of the system. "Behold Our Creation! Rejoice in Our Genius!"

I'd like to see as much of the system as possible. I'd like to hear: "This is what we've got so far. What's wrong with it? How can it be made better?" I'd like a chance to point out the flaws before you use them as an excuse to publish 4.5 (or whatever you intend to call it).

 

[DonTadow]

Here's what's wrong with your 4.0 communication: It's all one way. Threads like this are a good start, but I mean the communication about the actual game mechanics.

Right now the approach is the same as with the 3.5 edition. Proud game designers are showing of random parts of the system. "Behold Our Creation! Rejoice in Our Genius!"

I'd like to see as much of the system as possible. I'd like to hear: "This is what we've got so far. What's wrong with it? How can it be made better?" I'd like a chance to point out the flaws before you use them as an excuse to publish 4.5 (or whatever you intend to call it).

And let the chaos begin!!!

These guys get paid to do a job, let them do their job. Many of the blogs have already stated that they have gathered player input for years. They don't need us to check it off as they go.

This is how business works. Mcdonalds doesn't take you in the back and let you watch and tell them how to cook your burger. Tom Clancy doesn't send notes to his readers letting him know his plots.

I've been watching 4e, listening tothe designers, and looking at my homerule notes over the last few years and so far they are spot on with the majority as well as logical thinking.

 

[Ry]

I'd like to see as much of the system as possible. I'd like to hear: "This is what we've got so far. What's wrong with it? How can it be made better?" I'd like a chance to point out the flaws before you use them as an excuse to publish 4.5 (or whatever you intend to call it).

There's a massive difference between reading game mechanics and playing the game - the playing the game bit is the one that will give the feedback they need. A playable version of the game is something they'll give to playtesters, but if they gave us enough info that we could play the game, why would we buy it? I can't blame them for the approach.

Also, the internet is something of a capricious beast - people can freak out in large-postcount quantities because they're misunderstanding things or just don't like them because they're new. I'd rather have a company worth of full-time designers and some external playtesters giving me feedback than try to sift real problems out of the chorous of the internet.

 

[Maggan]

Oh, and another thing for WotC to seriously take into consideration:

Staying power.

It's great that you post at EN World, and write blogs. But remember, you have to continue to do so. Maybe not to the extent that we are seeing right now, but you have to continue to keep posting and writing blogs, otherwise you run the risk of a backlash.

So keep on posting. Post frequently. Rather 10 short bursts a month than one huge per month.

/M

 

[Fifth Element]

Case example: Gnomes, in or out? People either love them or hate them. These boards and several others are littered with opinions and purported facts. It polarizes people. Then throw in the rumors that Gnomes will be on the DDInsider and people get all fired up about the validity of the "not required" stance. More dissonance... What is the purpose of telling us that one race is being dropped without telling us which one?

I hadn't thought of this, and it's a really good point. If WotC has made the decision to drop gnomes, just coming out and saying so would be helpful.

 

[Iku Rex]

These guys get paid to do a job, let them do their job. Many of the blogs have already stated that they have gathered player input for years. They don't need us to check it off as they go.

How can they have years of player input on a system that isn't even 100% finished yet?

When they published the 3.0 and 3.5 editions they also claimed to have gathered player input for years. Have you seen the errata threads? The endless message board discussions over how common game elements are supposed to work? It's one thing to say "this doesn't work". Coming up with a consistent, balanced and clearly worded alternative is another matter entirely.

*** new post ***

There's a massive difference between reading game mechanics and playing the game - the playing the game bit is the one that will give the feedback they need.

There is a difference, but that doesn't mean it's impossible to catch problems just by reading the rules.

And if "playing the game" is how you get feedback, then what could be better than having vast hordes of playtesters sharing their opinions?

A playable version of the game is something they'll give to playtesters, but if they gave us enough info that we could play the game, why would we buy it? I can't blame them for the approach.

Can you imagine if some sort of System Reference Document containing the 3rd edition rules had been available for free online? They'd hardly have sold a single 3.X core rulebook!

Wait. Sorry. We did have an SRD, and they still sold plenty of books. The 3.5 edition is an even better example - people had a "enough information to play the game", they knew the 3.5 SRD was available (or right around the corner) and yet most still shelled out for the latest official hardcover version of the rules.

Also, the internet is something of a capricious beast - people can freak out in large-postcount quantities because they're misunderstanding things or just don't like them because they're new. I'd rather have a company worth of full-time designers and some external playtesters giving me feedback than try to sift real problems out of the chorous of the internet.

If lots of people freak out over or don't like something then that's a sign that it requires special consideration. I guess I have more faith in WotC's game designers than you, but I think they will make better decisions if the decisions are informed.

 

[Ry]

They are doing playtesting. They will also have signups for playtesters outside of WotC. They'll be listening to feedback from that - and even better, because they know people have been playing the game, they know they can rely on that feedback. They don't have to sift out trolls, flamebait, people who read half the first chapter and decided to post, and so on. They'll be focusing their attention on the people that played. You should try to get in on that.

 

[Glyfair]

They are doing playtesting. They will also have signups for playtesters outside of WotC. They'll be listening to feedback from that - and even better, because they know people have been playing the game, they know they can rely on that feedback. They don't have to sift out trolls, flamebait, people who read half the first chapter and decided to post, and so on. They'll be focusing their attention on the people that played. You should try to get in on that.

Indeed, I'm making arrangements for this. Hopefully the fact that I'm an experienced playtester will pull some weight.

 

[DonTadow]

How can they have years of player input on a system that isn't even 100% finished yet?

When they published the 3.0 and 3.5 editions they also claimed to have gathered player input for years. Have you seen the errata threads? The endless message board discussions over how common game elements are supposed to work? It's one thing to say "this doesn't work". Coming up with a consistent, balanced and clearly worded alternative is another matter entirely.

*** new post ***

There is a difference, but that doesn't mean it's impossible to catch problems just by reading the rules.

And if "playing the game" is how you get feedback, then what could be better than having vast hordes of playtesters sharing their opinions?

Can you imagine if some sort of System Reference Document containing the 3rd edition rules had been available for free online? They'd hardly have sold a single 3.X core rulebook!

Wait. Sorry. We did have an SRD, and they still sold plenty of books. The 3.5 edition is an even better example - people had a "enough information to play the game", they knew the 3.5 SRD was available (or right around the corner) and yet most still shelled out for the latest official hardcover version of the rules. If lots of people freak out over or don't like something then that's a sign that it requires special consideration. I guess I have more faith in WotC's game designers than you, but I think they will make better decisions if the decisions are informed.

Well, contrary to popular belief the gamers of the world have not united under one voice. There is lots of opinions and suggestions. I"m sure they took the majority. Sure there were problems with 3 and 3.5, everything ...everything has a revision. There are no less than 7 errors everyday in the New York times. That's a heck ofa lot of errata.

However, this time around, because of the internet, there is a tighter way of them to observe our requests. If you search enworld, just compare similiar threads. The problems are blatant. Unlike with 2e which had a variety of problems and not a really solid way to get a consenus of players.