In the thread started by Ari Marmell, we have a description of the 4e playtest from someone (not me - Shroomy) who is not directly affiliated with WoTC:
http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=4019147&postcount=91
Quote:
Originally Posted by Derren
Sorry if that sounds offensive, it is not intended this way (but I seem to attract flamewars whenever I talk about 4e).
I am a bit disappointed about this information because it basically just repeats what the designers said. "Combat is simple, combat is cool". I know that by now.
If anything, it just further increases my fear that 4E will focus only on combat and remove
any non combat information about monsters. And judging from the Pit Fiend discussions I am not alone with this fear.
Sadly this blog entry seems to further confirm that in 4E monsters will only be XP containers with combat stats. If you want them to use to something besides combat it requires houseruling (=preparation).
I just hope that Combats in the real game are really exiting, because the 4E Pit Fiend doesn't look exiting at all (one trick pony. Protect yourself against fire and this guy is harmless. And just 3 possible actions? It will get boring very fast as the players will always know what to expect).
Well, this quote got me to chime in here, as I just got my go ahead to talk a little about playtesting. And since there's no way I can profit from my blurbage, there should be no lingering doubts about whether it's because I'm looking for a future gig. Although anyone who even suspects that of Ari should be ashamed of themselves.
For those of you who don't know me, I'm John Rogers. I write the Blue Beetle comic book for DC, wrote and produced the pilot for a TV version of Warren Ellis' Global Frequency, and I occasionally write movies. I'm not a game designer, but primarily a writer in multiple formats. I only mention this because some of you have been looking for feedback from a non-designer, and so you can evaluate my opinions in the context of how I use the game.
4E is the edition that promotes storytelling to primacy in the gameplay.
It does so by streamlining the rules -- by giving you cleaner, more relevant information for the situations when you actually need information. My first thought when I read the ruels was "Hmm, somebody at WOTC got a hold of The Paradox of Choice ." There are multiple levels of choice in playing the game and building the characters, but now there only mechanics for those choices for when they are mechanically relevant.
Don't think "simple." Think "clean."
I think the reason there's so much buzz around 4E combat is because that's where the most massive fun-change has come in, and so it naturally dominates discussion and perception. By the time my NDA playtest group got through our first session, we'd (unintentionally) fought three massive combats in one four hour session, many multiple opponents each time. When we finished we all kind of sat back, glassy-eyed, and went "wow." Except for the rogue. He was punching the air and cackling "More stabby! MORE STABBY!"
Because 3E combat had gotten so ... er .. gunky, combat's the first thing you notice when playing 4E. It's hard not to talk about it. A bit like if you bought a new car and got it up to 250 mph. The fact that it has a great interior, amazing safety features and a kick-butt stereo never really comes up in your first conversations about the car.
There are mechanics in place in the rules, separate from the combat rules, to fill in the non-combat tools of a PC/NPC/monster. Stat blocks are there for when they're needed -- when you need to look at stats. In a block. Fast. Like, during combat. Not only that, as the DM I felt I had all the info I needed for the bits I needed help with (combat) but the freedom not to be bound by unnecessary information when we were roleplaying. That's what prompted me to post -- the above gentleman's concern that "If you want [monsters] to use to something besides combat it requires houseruling (=preparation)." What is that "something" besides basic combat? Roleplaying, right? What in that stat block actively contradicts any roleplaying, and more so, what more in the stat block do you need to use it in a story? Each monster (as I understand it) will come with well-nigh a full page of flavor text in the MM. That should be the base for the non-combat-y bits, while the stat block is the wrench you use for the combat-y bits.
That's why, as a writer, the edition tickles me pink. No more rummaging about for the appropriate monster with the appropriate trained skills and appropriate background to fit my plot -- or adjusting the fiddly stats of cool monsters to wedge them into my PC's level and story setting. No more building NPC's for hours so they not only do what I want them to do, they also have every fiddly bit necessary to work but that I'll never, ever access in-game. Enough detail to guide, never so much to cripple.
As far as simple/boring combat -- that Pit Fiend? He's elite, so there's going to be two of them, summoning in multiple other high level monsters with their own funky abilities, all set in a matrix against the multiple combat powers and spells of your five own high-level NPC's. While some people seem disappointed by the lack of options in this situation and somehow see MORE prep here, the prospect of running that combat on its own in 3E would make me, as a DM, throw up in my mouth. With 4E, I'd have no problem running it. And that's why a streamlined mechanic system is important for storytelling, because it's easier to throw a wide variety of stuff at my players, and easier to play out the results of said throwage. Whenever I have more choices in storytelling, for me, that's always a good thing.
In short, my playtest experience for what it's worth:
Less prep time for the DM, with no loss of versatility in combat, and plenty of added value and unexpected strategies. Monster design is superior for what I need, which is versatility in the service of storytelling. Trap design in particular made me want to kiss Dave Noonan on the mouth. While roleplaying, we had more freedom, because when you actually need a roll in the roleplaying you're working off a cleaner system, rather than page-hunting for one of the independently designed subsystems.
Take it as you will.
Shroomy,
Thanks for your perspective. I've been waiting for playtesters to have something to say about 4e, and what you say is very encouraging.
Any chance we can all drop by your house this weekend and play a game? :)
|
Shroomy,
Thanks for your perspective. I've been waiting for playtesters to have something to say about 4e, and what you say is very encouraging.Any chance we can all drop by your house this weekend and play a game? :)
As a player, i can see how this would be fun, but as a GM I love the prep time, and challenging savvy players with high-level players and their myriad of options.
This remind me of boring 2nd edition combat...without OA martial arts, kits and players options.
Thank God there are people discussing this who have actually played the game.
Sometimes 4e reminds me of Shakespeare. A lot of people have read about Shakespeare than have actually read Shakespeare, yet everyone has an opinion.
And yes, I too have talked a lot about 4e without knowing much about it. But I guess I was reacting to people who automatically dismiss it. I'll try to do less of that, but I must admit I am now doubly excited about 4e and the release.
Just to clarify, I'm not the playtester (I wish).
Hmm... sounds all good... but...
Certainly, there will be a playtester or two who can think of some cons to the new system? As unbiased as John seems to be, I generally prefer "reviews" that talk about the shortcomings as well as the good parts. After all, nothing's perfect.
Let's face it, this playtester is specifically addressing one point raised from a naysayer. That makes his post part of a greater debate of sorts. He doesn't address any negatives from an unrelated area of the issue because he doesn't need to.
I'll have to reread Ari's post to see if he's speaking specifically towards naysayers or not. If so, well then it's the same deal as this post. If not, I'd still prefer one or two statements like "Oh, this is great... except this joint could use a bit of polish" from a few playtesters down the line.
I have no doubt that this system has some aspects that are feel like a breath of fresh air compared to playing with 3.5... but I personally felt that when it first came out 3E had that same edge over 2E. At the moment, 4E's flaws might be going ignored because it's all brand shiny new.
Regardless, I hope a lot more playtesters start talking soon. :)
I have no doubt that this system has some aspects that are feel like a breath of fresh air compared to playing with 3.5... but I personally felt that when it first came out 3E had that same edge over 2E. At the moment, 4E's flaws might be going ignored because it's all brand shiny new.
You're probably right to some extent - which is probably why it's inevitable there will be a 5.0 some day despite claims that "zee game will remain zee same." However, unlike many who hate the idea of hundreds of dollars of books becoming obsolete, I'm not sure that's a bad thing. I always like to see improvement and going "back to basics."
He doesn't say anything definite - including his experience as a player or DM. I highly doubt he's going to say anything too negative - though the fact that even he calls the most powerful thing in the 9 Hells short of the levels' rulers a one trick pony makes me laugh. Basically, this means nothing.
Interesting. It makes me a little more hopeful for 4E. Just a little.
Welcome to 4e, my prodigal son. ;)
I know, I know. You're not actually sold on 4e, but at least you're staying open minded. Sometimes it seems that no matter what comes out about 4e, people are going to blast it.
I'll believe it when I see it.
Good post, Brian.
On the other hand, 3 massive combats in 4 hours leads me to believe it was just an all-out button mashing bloodfest. Is it really an improvement to have your characters wade through the enemies like a scythe through grass? A first level fighter is supposed to see 8 orcs charging him and soil his new splint mail, not yawn and bet the rogue he'll kill the last before the first hits the ground. I never heard my players say "I want to kill twice the enemies twice as fast!" (unless the enemies were gnolls) It makes me think of some wild Battletech nights back in the day. Again, who knows? And yes, I exaggerated a bit, however it sounds like an even worse example of the pen and paper video game soon-to-be-named 4E.
Devil's Advocate Question: What if WotC is only letting those speak that will say something positive about 4E?
thoughts?
For the record, I don't believe this, but I would believe that WotC is allowing those to speak that they know won't say to much and give away anything that are not allowed to share. But I thought I would still pose the question as a discussion point/food for thought.
On one hand of course I think they only want the positive people, then again, I saw those videos they put out about gamer stereotypes and multiclassing. I've long past given up thinking they know what they're doing.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Devil's Advocate Question: What if WotC is only letting those speak that will say something positive about 4E?
thoughts?
For the record, I don't believe this, but I would believe that WotC is allowing those to speak that they know won't say to much and give away anything that are not allowed to share. But I thought I would still pose the question as a discussion point/food for thought.
It's likely they picked two people predisposed to giving a positive statement, and they even went so far as to pick two people that are writers by profession and are likely to be better communicators than your average run of the mill playtester.
That being said, even if they're only letting biased playtesters speak, I still find the playtester information to be so much better than the standard WotC PR to date. There's actually some substance to this post, a quantifiable fact of some sort. We aren't dealing with the WotC b+&@&&&$ playtest where they're just running Eberron, playing with non-core races, and can only type over and over again "it was so kewl, it was so kewl". We're hearing from an actual playtester who is passing on actual information. It's damn refreshing to see any news about 4e being met with some degree of consideration and not immediate rejection due to WotC being condescending/arrogant/obnoxious.
Take the source with a grain of salt, as you would any information, but note that the presentation and substance is better than most of what's come out to date.
Apparently, Ari Marmell asked WoTC if he could speak about 4e (he's kind of mad about some of accusations he has had to suffer), I don't know about the other guy.
A first level fighter is supposed to see 8 orcs charging him and soil his new splint mail, not yawn and bet the rogue he'll kill the last before the first hits the ground. I never heard my players say "I want to kill twice the enemies twice as fast!"
QFT. That is a really good point. Yea, combat may time some serious time, but really ... why is that a bad thing? What's wrong with enjoying the game? Why do the players have to be on a killing overdrive.
And from what I see, I like my combat deadlier. I don't like it when players are so overconfident of their victory that they're counting kills instead of thinking how they're going to survive. ("Legolas, I've got two." "I'm up to eightteen." Thanks but no thanks.)
It's damn refreshing to see any news about 4e being met with some degree of consideration and not immediate rejection due to WotC being condescending/arrogant/obnoxious.
I'll definitely agree with that.
I just glad people are finally talking.
Like I say again and again, I'm really hopeful, and I'm not saddened that I have 2 versions of the game to play at all.
To this day the only thing I regret is the loss of Dragon and Dungeon, but I understand WotC's desire to consolidate and restructure.
Long live D&D.
Devil's Advocate Question: What if WotC is only letting those speak that will say something positive about 4E?
thoughts?
For the record, I don't believe this, but I would believe that WotC is allowing those to speak that they know won't say to much and give away anything that are not allowed to share. But I thought I would still pose the question as a discussion point/food for thought.
I suspect that anyone that isn't predisposed to liking 4e has probably been put on other projects.
For the record I don't believe this is a bad thing. Think about it. If you had a major project that is nearing completion, would you want anyone who has negative things to say about it working on it? Sure, in the beginning, when basic direction is being determined, you want to hear all sides of the arguments and figure out a best plan of action. But once a direction has been decided and money has been spent, you don't want people dragging down the team. You can still have competing arguments, but when it comes to presenting to the client, everybody better be on board.
And I've seen what happens when "team members" speak against the team in a public forum. It ain't pretty. That stuff is reserved for closed-door meetings. But when the team exits, its one for all and all for one. Either that, or your team fractures. And that will seriously hurt any project.
Greg
To this day the only thing I regret is the loss of Dragon and Dungeon, but I understand WotC's desire to consolidate and restructure.
I do and I don't understand it. I understand that a WotC think tank got together, decided that Dragon & Dungeon are helpful tools to get people to sign up for their DDI and then maybe those people will enjoy the other aspects of the Insider. I understand that they probably felt that people were using Dragon & Dungeon as substitutes to buy "official" books and adventures. They probably saw trends of online RPGs and wondered how they could get on the bandwagon without completely overhauling D&D to an online game. And DDI is what they came up with.
But I think they're wrong. I imagine that if today we still had Dragon and Dungeon, with intelligent articles previewing 4e and the same high quality material the magazine had for the last couple years, then people would be more interested in DDI and 4e. A good preview of DDI in a print magazine would be a much better spur to buy into it than sparse and uninteresting articles on the current DDI that most people don't read because it's digital and digital isn't that fun to read for any long period of time. Plus, I was much more likely to buy WotC books if good and interesting preview articles were in the printed Dragon and game mechanics from those books were used in the printed Dungeon. Now I don't care about the magazines because they're online and frankly pathetic. I don't imagine I'm alone.
I'm excited about 4e, but think the Dragon/Dungeon thing went down all wrong.
|
I've been quite vehement in my disgust at WotC and (almost) equally in my vehemnce that it is due to the loss of the mags aggravated by an insulting PR job introducing 4E.
But this is good news, and somewhat well presented. Now, I'm certainly not going to buy WotC merchandise, but I have certainly made my mind up to read 4E at the bookstore and learn about the system to see what improvements I can use for my own system.
This Saturday was (suppose to be) the final session of my SCAP w/ AoW (modified homebrew) campaign in which the PCs have the Finale, "Strike on the Shatterhorn" against ALL the remaining BBEGs. We got through 9 rounds in 6 hours and are not even half way through this epic battle. Vhalantru is still invisible; Hookface still has over 500 HPs, Lashona, Ilthane and The Faceless One haven't even been hit yet, and Dark Myrakul hasn't... (sorry no spoilers to my Players).
The whole battle was SUPPOSE to be over after 6 hours of play, not nearly 1/2 way over. Sat was my birthday and I wanted to finish the campaign then!
-W. E. Ray
Whimsy Chris, I agree with what you say -- except that last line; it was a big blunder to eliminate the mags.
I agree it was a serious blunder. I'm assuming you don't agree with my excitement for 4e. I know I'm in the minority at least on the Paizo threads when it comes to 4e, but I'm 100% in agreement that the move from print to digital with the mags is one of the worse things that has happened to the game.
I also agree with you when it comes to WotC PR - sometimes those "video answers" make me want to hurl they are so bad.
This is about as close to a hard, useful fact as anyone playing with 4th edition can give us without info-dumping entire pages of rules. Three massive combats in four hours is huge!
While I won't argue with your opinion...
I do have to point out something.
Until we do get to see the rules, for all we know combat is resolved by rolling a D6. On a 2+ the players win.
No, I don't believe this to be the extent of the combat rules... But that system could be considered tremendously fun by some.
Also, on the thought of leaving out the non-combat-y bits:
Without the inclusion of social rules, such as the bluff/diplomacy/profession skills, (even if they are optional) that actually puts more stress on the players and DMs.
Introverted players will have to come out of their shell just to interact (not necessarily a bad thing, but giving them an alternative is a really good thing), and DMs will have to know when to stop early just because they are getting too tired to be objective.
And on top of that, it will allow the horror of a "Cowboys and Indians" type arguement over wether or not a player successfully bluffed a guard. Yes, I have witnesed those before, and 3rd Edition put a thankful end to that.
Maybe 4th Edition is showing you all you want to get worked up over it...
But until you get it home, and get its clothes off, you'll never know if it is really a woman - or a transvestite.
Devil's Advocate Question: What if WotC is only letting those speak that will say something positive about 4E?
thoughts?
For the record, I don't believe this, but I would believe that WotC is allowing those to speak that they know won't say to much and give away anything that are not allowed to share. But I thought I would still pose the question as a discussion point/food for thought.
You should believe it. It's true. I know some playtesters, and I've seen the email. Basically, the folks at WotC told their playtesters that they can admit they were playtesters, but they must only say good things about the game. All negative comments should be kept to themselves.
In my mind, this is a horrid abuse of trust, and a blatant attempt to deceive me by censoring their playtest group. Shame on you WotC.
What in that stat block actively contradicts any roleplaying, and more so, what more in the stat block do you need to use it in a story? Each monster (as I understand it) will come with well-nigh a full page of flavor text in the MM. That should be the base for the non-combat-y bits, while the stat block is the wrench you use for the combat-y bits.
That's why, as a writer, the edition tickles me pink. No more rummaging about for the appropriate monster with the appropriate trained skills and appropriate background to fit my plot -- or adjusting the fiddly stats of cool monsters to wedge them into my PC's level and story setting. No more building NPC's for hours so they not only do what I want them to do, they also have every fiddly bit necessary to work but that I'll never, ever access in-game. Enough detail to guide, never so much to cripple.
What in the stat block supports roleplay? Nothing. Pages of fluff won't tell me if my players can baffle an entertainment starved monster with their musical performance.
Also, I can't see why there's no more rummaging about for monsters to fit a plot. You still have to pick 'em and fit 'em in. As for fiddly bits and NPCs, just make what you need. Why'd you waste time figuring out unnecessary things to begin with?
Nothing personal, but I'm stil suspicious and not impressed.
I certainly do not understand the point that faster combat is easier combat. If 8 orcs are not good enough for your party then throw them 16. The mechanics will not change so it will not be such a burden.
If combat, in general, resolves faster then more time for roleplaying.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
Devil's Advocate Question: What if WotC is only letting those speak that will say something positive about 4E?
thoughts?
For the record, I don't believe this, but I would believe that WotC is allowing those to speak that they know won't say to much and give away anything that are not allowed to share. But I thought I would still pose the question as a discussion point/food for thought.
You should believe it. It's true. I know some playtesters, and I've seen the email. Basically, the folks at WotC told their playtesters that they can admit they were playtesters, but they must only say good things about the game. All negative comments should be kept to themselves.
In my mind, this is a horrid abuse of trust, and a blatant attempt to deceive me by censoring their playtest group. Shame on you WotC.
What e-mail have you seen that supports this? Obviously, since you revealed that you saw proof that WotC is "forcing" playtesters to say only good things about 4E, you are not under a NDA, so you should be fine if you show, and not tell.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I write the Blue Beetle comic book for DC.....I'd have trusted what he says more if he had not revealed this little factoid.
As it stands, I'll remain on the slightly pessimistic side for now.
Would you have felt better if he had Captain America credits? ;-)
It looks like it's designed to be simple, maybe too much? "Here are these high level characters in this new rules mechanic for the first time, lets see how much damage you can do."
FTR, let me say again, that I hope, for the sake of the industry, 4.0 is a smashing success. It's just not -my- smashing success.
|
|
I write the Blue Beetle comic book for DC.....I'd have trusted what he says more if he had not revealed this little factoid.
As it stands, I'll remain on the slightly pessimistic side for now.
Would you have felt better if he had Captain America credits? ;-)
Oh I didn't mean that he wrote comics. I've been collecting comics longer than some folks on these boards have been alive. And Blue Beetle used to be one of my favorite characters, even if some folks always considered him second tier. I meant that, in my own humble opinion, the new version of Blue Beetle sucks nuts and the writing hasn't been that great.
|
|
He doesn't say anything definite - including his experience as a player or DM. I highly doubt he's going to say anything too negative - though the fact that even he calls the most powerful thing in the 9 Hells short of the levels' rulers a one trick pony makes me laugh. Basically, this means nothing.No, he does say something, something very important and something we've heard from multiple people:
By the time my NDA playtest group got through our first session, we'd (unintentionally) fought three massive combats in one four hour session, many multiple opponents each time. When we finished we all kind of sat back, glassy-eyed, and went "wow."This is about as close to a hard, useful fact as anyone playing with 4th edition can give us without info-dumping entire pages of rules. Three massive combats in four hours is huge! Even assuming you did nothing but combat, you couldn't pull that off right now in 3rd edition. 3rd edition is sssssslllllllooooooowwwwww, painfully so, so slow, I don't have time to play it.
And this wasn't a group that was familiar with the rules, working together like a well-oiled machine. This was "our first session". Think about that a moment. With their first time actually using the rules together, perhaps even the first time some of them had even used these characters, they pulled off three multi-foe combats in four hours time.
I'm not a big fan of 4.0 yet, I've even said on my blog I probably won't be migrating over. But if the game really does play this smoothly, it deserves to be a huge hit, even if everything else about it is utterly wretched.
- Brian
Low level 3.5 combat can also be this fast. If you do nothing but run combat, you could easily finish 3 fights in 4 hours with characters below 4th level. Now, if he said that the 4E playtest characters were 8th level or higher, that would be indeed be proof that 4th edition combat was significantly faster than combat in 3.5.
|
|
Also, on the thought of leaving out the non-combat-y bits:
Without the inclusion of social rules, such as the bluff/diplomacy/profession skills, (even if they are optional) that actually puts more stress on the players and DMs.And on top of that, it will allow the horror of a "Cowboys and Indians" type arguement over wether or not a player successfully bluffed a guard. Yes, I have witnesed those before, and 3rd Edition put a thankful end to that.
And of course, there was always one player who insisted he would be proficient at everything; whatever the situation...
"Oh, I would so totally be able to do that, it's in my background notes, I grew up on a ship, I would be able to navigate"
"You were a cabin boy!"
"I would have kept my eyes and ears open, picked up some tips"
Then later;
"I would totally be able to control that runaway horse; I grew up in the woods"
"I thought you grew up on a ship?"
"That was my dad's side; they split up and I spent every second weekend with my mom, learning ranger skills"
But until you get it home, and get its clothes off, you'll never know if it is really a woman - or a transvestite.
A very interesting choice of phrase; what prompted you to use....No, on second thoughts, I shouldn't ask...
|
|
You should believe it. It's true. I know some playtesters, and I've seen the email. Basically, the folks at WotC told their playtesters that they can admit they were playtesters, but they must only say good things about the game. All negative comments should be kept to themselves.
Only problem with that is; that's highly subjective. Who makes the call whether a blog is positive?
You could post that "4E is so cool, it allows you to pull off all sorts of moves that you see in manga, anime and modern action movies...".
To the poster, and their bosses, that's a 'positive' review, but a total negative for folks like me. I'd read that and go "Bleeeecchhh!".
Also, on the thought of leaving out the non-combat-y bits:
Without the inclusion of social rules, such as the bluff/diplomacy/profession skills, (even if they are optional) that actually puts more stress on the players and DMs.
Introverted players will have to come out of their shell just to interact (not necessarily a bad thing, but giving them an alternative is a really good thing), and DMs will have to know when to stop early just because they are getting too tired to be objective.
And on top of that, it will allow the horror of a "Cowboys and Indians" type arguement over wether or not a player successfully bluffed a guard. Yes, I have witnesed those before, and 3rd Edition put a thankful end to that.
In multiple design blogs and perhaps an article or two they have stressed one of the things they are working on are new rules for social interaction. They realize it is a HUGE part of the game and have focused on it. So do not sweat the 'cowboy & indian' stuff, rules are being put in place.
And, Lou, you have to understand how ridiculous your statements sound until you produce some kind of proof. I mean it is just common sense to verify your argument before decrying something so arduously.
You should believe it. It's true. I know some playtesters, and I've seen the email. Basically, the folks at WotC told their playtesters that they can admit they were playtesters, but they must only say good things about the game. All negative comments should be kept to themselves.
While I am not saying you are wrong, it does sound like someone violated an NDA somewhere (or at the very least, stretched it as far as it can go).
Devil's Advocate Question: What if WotC is only letting those speak that will say something positive about 4E?
thoughts?
For the record, I don't believe this, but I would believe that WotC is allowing those to speak that they know won't say to much and give away anything that are not allowed to share. But I thought I would still pose the question as a discussion point/food for thought.
You should believe it. It's true. I know some playtesters, and I've seen the email. Basically, the folks at WotC told their playtesters that they can admit they were playtesters, but they must only say good things about the game. All negative comments should be kept to themselves.
In my mind, this is a horrid abuse of trust, and a blatant attempt to deceive me by censoring their playtest group. Shame on you WotC.
What e-mail have you seen that supports this? Obviously, since you revealed that you saw proof that WotC is "forcing" playtesters to say only good things about 4E, you are not under a NDA, so you should be fine if you show, and not tell.
I posted this in another thread, but I'll repost my answer to this here.
Well what will you accept as proof? What I'm telling you is that playtester(s) I know shared with me the email the they received from WotC. I guess I can ask the playtester to forward me the email or its text, but I could always be faking that if I posted it.
So is this second hand info? Sure, but I've got no motivation to lie. And as far as I know I've never lied to you before, so I guess you can believe me or not.
However, the playtester(s) I know are scared to speak up on their own as they hold freelancer aspirations. And you're right, it's a low move on wotc's part, so I'm speaking up.
In short, if you think I'm lying about this, why would you believe me if I posted up some text, without ip header and names, that I claimed was an email from wotc? What will you accept as proof that isn't "ridiculous"?
I will ask my playtester budd(ies) anyway, but I'm not sure if they'll be willing to forward me the email because they are under NDA. On the other hand, I don't know if they're NDA includes emails wotc sends them about their NDA; so I'll ask. Still not sure what will work as proof for you. Let me know.
Oh, absolutely. The game could be very quick but with utterly boring combat.
Until we do get to see the rules, for all we know combat is resolved by rolling a D6. On a 2+ the players win.
It sure didn't sound boring when the original review said, "When we finished we all kind of sat back, glassy-eyed, and went "wow."
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
And this is why hearsay is generally inadmissable (with a million exceptions) in a court of law. Sure, maybe your friend told you that. How do we know he knows what he's doing? Maybe he misread the NDA. Maybe he is lying to you. Who knows. Pretty weak rumor, and pretty hard to imagine anyone that would sanely structure an NDA to say "you can disclose positive information but not negative information." Talk about unenforceable...
Long story short, I'll believe it when I see this alleged NDA (or email) that distinguishes positive information from negative information. It's much more likely that it says something sane like, "Can only disclose with WotC's prior written permission" and that WotC has only given permission to certain playtesters to disclose certain things. Which is reasonable since the entire point of an NDA is to control the flow of information.
And this is why hearsay is generally inadmissable (with a million exceptions) in a court of law. Sure, maybe your friend told you that. How do we know he knows what he's doing? Maybe he misread the NDA. Maybe he is lying to you. Who knows. Pretty weak rumor, and pretty hard to imagine anyone that would sanely structure an NDA to say "you can disclose positive information but not negative information." Talk about unenforceable...
Long story short, I'll believe it when I see this alleged NDA that distinguishes positive information from negative information. It's much more likely that it says something sane like, "Can only disclose with WotC's prior written permission."
Dude. You misread my post. First of all, this isn't a law court. Second, I never said anything about the contents of the NDA. I've never seen the NDA. I'm saying a separate email went out after the fact telling playtesters they were (1) now allowed to admit they were playtesters (which hearsay tells me was part of the original NDA), and (2) they are not allowed to say anything critical -- only good stuff.
I've already admitted this is secondhand info. Though, for the life of me, I can't think of any reason my friend(s) would lie to me about receiving this email, and they certainly aren't...unclear enough...to be mistaken about receiving such an email.
So, if the suppression of full and honest opinions doesn't bother you, I guess I don't know what to say to that. If one is content to hear only good information, all the pros and none of the cons, when trying to decide whether to spend money on opening day -- then I guess one is content and willing to take the risk the product is a lemon. That just isn't me. PS I know that was Trollsmyth's point, not yours, but I'm just tired of making multiple posts.
That said, since we now know we're not talking about an NDA, I ask again, what will you accept as proof? If you think I'm lying, then you clearly could think I'm the type to write a fake email.
What I'm telling you is that my playtester friend(s) received an email telling them they could't share their full opinions with the public. So assume for a second the bare fact of what I'm saying is true; then here's my honest question: does that sit well with you?
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Dude. You misread my post. First of all, this isn't a law court. Second, I never said anything about the contents of the NDA. I've never seen the NDA. I'm saying a separate email went out after the fact telling playtesters they were (1) now allowed to admit they were playtesters (which hearsay tells was part of the original NDA), and (2) they were not to say anything critical -- only good stuff.
My point was that the truth of your statements is irrelevant to the truth of the underlying fact. Your friend might tell you that George Bush is from the planet Zygon and is here to steal Earth's potassium. You may believe him and communicate that information to us. That doesn't mean the underlying factual claim (George Bush is an alien) has any merit. Because we can't actually question the speaker (your friend), what you think about him doesn't bring us any closer to the truth of the underlying factual claim (George Bush is an alien).
I find it highly unlikely that WotC is allowing its playtesters to diclose information, but only good stuff. They are most likely allowing them to disclose nothing or only stuff with prior approval. The fact that you know someone who's cousin once sat in a bus next to the secretary of the president of WotC and that person read an email from WotC doesn't somehow make your information more reliable.
If the suppression of full and honest opinions doesn't bother you, I guess I don't know what to say to that. If one is content to hear only good information, all the pros and none of the cons, when trying to decide whether to spend money on opening day -- then I guess one is content and willing to take the risk the product is a lemon. That just isn't me. PS I know that was Trollsmyth's point, not yours, but I'm just tired of making multiple posts.
Welcome to the real world. NDAs are a part of doing business.
That said, since we now know we're not talking about an NDA, I ask again, what will you accept as proof? If you think I'm lying, then you clearly could think I'm the type to write a fake email.
There isn't anything you can do to prove it, mostly because it's almost certainly not correct.
What I'm telling you is that my playtester friend(s) received an email telling them they could't share their full opinions with the public. So assume for a second the bare fact of what I'm saying is true; then here's my honest question: does that sit well with you?
It sits just fine with me. WotC's business is selling their IP. They have a right to control the distribution of their IP. That's the whole point of an NDA. If they are stupid enough to say "it's okay to disclose only positive stuff", that's their business. At the end of the day, we're going to see the books and (some of us) will be making judgments based on what the books actually contain. In the meantime, WotC can tell us as much or as little as they want in whatever format they want and that's just fine.
Dude. You misread my post. First of all, this isn't a law court. Second, I never said anything about the contents of the NDA. I've never seen the NDA. I'm saying a separate email went out after the fact telling playtesters they were (1) now allowed to admit they were playtesters (which hearsay tells me was part of the original NDA), and (2) they are not allowed to say anything critical -- only good stuff.I've already admitted this is secondhand info. Though, for the life of me, I can't think of any reason my friend(s) would lie to me about receiving this email, and they certainly aren't...unclear enough...to be mistaken about receiving such an email.
So, if the suppression of full and honest opinions doesn't bother you, I guess I don't know what to say to that. If one is content to hear only good information, all the pros and none of the cons, when trying to decide whether to spend money on opening day -- then I guess one is content and willing to take the risk the product is a lemon. That just isn't me. PS I know that was Trollsmyth's point, not yours, but I'm just tired of making multiple posts.
That said, since we now know we're not talking about an NDA, I ask again, what will you accept as proof? If you think I'm lying, then you clearly could think I'm the type to write a fake email.
What...
Hey Lou,
I believe your news but wanted some details as to your source because I've also heard crappy things about 4th edition from my brother (who is friends with a group of playtesters). The word, as he heard it, was that 4th edition played like a tactical "minis" game with no soul or depth to it.
The playtesters he knows were NOT impressed with the game at all.
That said, I expect this to be dismissed as I heard it 3rd-hand from him. Only time will tell I guess, though I'll be holding off on buying 4th edition for quite a while.