People may have missed this gem since it was in the 4E Forum. WotC is apparently using external playtesters for some 4E content.
People may have missed this gem since it was in the 4E Forum. WotC is apparently using external playtesters for some 4E content.
Lead, and others will follow. Keep leading Paizo!
Director of Brand Strategy
|
People may have missed this gem since it was in the 4E Forum. WotC is apparently using external playtesters for some 4E content.
External playtesting is different than open playtesting. They did external playtests for 4e with members of the RPGA and their freelance writer pool. I took part in the latter, and have to say that none of our feedback from day 1 (october of last year) was ever responded to, much less integrated into the system. I think that WotC needs to improve their communication with their client/playtester base before they attempt a large scale playtest like Paizo is doing. Just my 2cp.
External playtesting is different than open playtesting. They did external playtests for 4e with members of the RPGA and their freelance writer pool. I took part in the latter, and have to say that none of our feedback from day 1 (october of last year) was ever responded to, much less integrated into the system. I think that WotC needs to improve their communication with their client/playtester base before they attempt a large scale playtest like Paizo is doing. Just my 2cp.People may have missed this gem since it was in the 4E Forum. WotC is apparently using external playtesters for some 4E content.
I'm good friends with one of external playtesters on the 4th Edition core set, and I can absolutely say that much of the feedback they sent in was responded to, and changes were made as a result.
I'm sorry your feedback was not considered for the changes, but that doesn't mean they were ignoring feedback in general. More likely is that the feedback you provided was not considered because it did not take the game in the direction they were looking to go.
|
Director of Brand Strategy
|
I'm sorry your feedback was not considered for the changes, but that doesn't mean they were ignoring feedback in general. More likely is that the feedback you provided was not considered because it did not take the game in the direction they were looking to go.
It must not have, because the game went in the opposite direction, and that's when WotC lost my whole 8 person group as customers. It seems like they had a specific idea in mind of where they wanted it to go, and listened to the half of the feedback that agreed with them, ignoring the rest. And the result is that the gaming community as a whole is very divided now. They could have done a little reaching across party lines in their development process.
I'm sorry your feedback was not considered for the changes, but that doesn't mean they were ignoring feedback in general. More likely is that the feedback you provided was not considered because it did not take the game in the direction they were looking to go.It must not have, because the game went in the opposite direction, and that's when WotC lost my whole 8 person group as customers. It seems like they had a specific idea in mind of where they wanted it to go, and listened to the half of the feedback that agreed with them, ignoring the rest.
Again, there is little point in a company listening to feedback that tells them the equivalent of "scrap the plans you had and do it differently" when they've already set a design philosophy out that disagrees with you.
Again, sorry that you weren't what Wizards was looking for. Hopefully eventually you'll give 4th Edition another honest try.
And the result is that the gaming community as a whole is very divided now. They could have done a little reaching across party lines in their development process.
The gaming community as a whole is absolutely not divided aside from a tiny minority splintering off to play Pathfinder. Which is good, since if Pathfinder survives to become an actual competitor the gaming market will improve. But don't for a second think that a handful of the most active online gamers is representative of the hundreds of thousands of people who play D&D.
|
The gaming community as a whole is absolutely not divided aside from a tiny minority splintering off to play Pathfinder. Which is good, since if Pathfinder survives to become an actual competitor the gaming market will improve. But don't for a second think that a handful of the most active online gamers is representative of the hundreds of thousands of people who play D&D.
Fact Police: Your opinion of Paizo's market share is NOT an established fact. Without sales figures for the Pathfinder rules (beta or otherwise), any attempt to compare the size of the Paizo market share to WotC is essentially an exercise in picking which opinion you like more. And regardless of whose opinions you believe, they will most likely be wrong in one way or another.
Funny how 4ed fans tend to dismiss Pathfinder as an irrelevant (if viable) remnant of the market, while Pathfinder fans tend to predict a market that leads to the doom of 4ed, isn't it?
What exactly is the point of a playtest for a rules set that's already been released in its finished form? Are we talking 4.5 already!?
What exactly is the point of a playtest for a rules set that's already been released in its finished form? Are we talking 4.5 already!?
Of course. They're already running late for that :D
|
It's not really a playtest, more of a preview. Pax Veritas has actually done a good job of pointing out that the time frame is absurdly compressed to make any sort of meaningful changes to the class. And we have no idea how it interacts with the other features of the PHB2 yet.
It's a good thing as previews stoke interest and we can see what the designers are thinking, but I'm not sure it's a playtest as such.
What exactly is the point of a playtest for a rules set that's already been released in its finished form? Are we talking 4.5 already!?
They're going to be releasing a new Player's Handbook every year (I think) with new classes, feats, etc.
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
I'm sorry your feedback was not considered for the changes, but that doesn't mean they were ignoring feedback in general. More likely is that the feedback you provided was not considered because it did not take the game in the direction they were looking to go.It must not have, because the game went in the opposite direction, and that's when WotC lost my whole 8 person group as customers. It seems like they had a specific idea in mind of where they wanted it to go, and listened to the half of the feedback that agreed with them, ignoring the rest.Again, there is little point in a company listening to feedback that tells them the equivalent of "scrap the plans you had and do it differently" when they've already set a design philosophy out that disagrees with you.
Again, sorry that you weren't what Wizards was looking for. Hopefully eventually you'll give 4th Edition another honest try.
This is absolutely not true. There's a lot of value in listening to feeback that disagrees with their already defined plans and philosophy. If a company gets lots of negative feedback, or suggestions that go off in a different direction than they had planned, that is an early warning sign that their market might not like their plans. If they ignore the feedback that disagrees with their original thoughts, they run the risk of not having a product that meets their market expectations. Unfortunately, corporate america is full of companies that ignore market research that disagrees with their plans, and only uses the research that reinforces their plans. I'm not saying that the 4E playtest did have a significant portion of feedback that was ignored, since I don't have a clue, but as a general statement, taking negative feedback, or feedback that diverges from your expectations seriously is one of the most important reasons to get external feedback in the first place.
My personal take on this in relation to 4E is that WOTC didn't listen enough to the feedback that suggested going in different directions, but that the feedback in that category wasn't a majority. I also get the impression that their playtesting was skewed by using a self selecting group that would be pre-disposed towards a favorable impression, by using primarily playtesters that already had strong relationships with WOTC (freelancers and those active in the RPGA.) While those are valuable groups, it would have been interesting to see the playtest results if WOTC had opened the playtest effort up to a larger percentage of gamers who weren't as active in the WOTC community.
You guys have GOT to be kidding.
WOTC does an external playtest, and suddenly they're "taking a cue from Paizo?"
I guess you missed the external 4E playtest.
...and the external 3.5E playtest.
...and the external 3E playtest.
Unless all RPGA members are WOTC employees? Sweet....hopefully my check is in the mail.
edit: Well, at least you didn't post it in the 4E forum...
|
|
You guys have GOT to be kidding.
WOTC does an external playtest, and suddenly they're "taking a cue from Paizo?"
I guess you missed the external 4E playtest.
...and the external 3.5E playtest.
...and the external 3E playtest.Unless all RPGA members are WOTC employees? Sweet....hopefully my check is in the mail.
edit: Well, at least you didn't post it in the 4E forum...
Neither of those tests was open. By opening this one out to the general community rather than inviting particular individuals, they are following the same route as Paizo's open playtest rather than their earlier, closed playtests. I doubt they're actually copying Paizo, however.
I think of it as 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, etc.What exactly is the point of a playtest for a rules set that's already been released in its finished form? Are we talking 4.5 already!?They're going to be releasing a new Player's Handbook every year (I think) with new classes, feats, etc.
Really? Why would that be, when the new PHBs won't be a revision of the earlier material?
The PHB II, III, etc will be introducing new races, classes etc not rewriting the previous books.
So the PHB "series" is kind of the new "Complete Class" series, right?
Neither of those tests was open. By opening this one out to the general community rather than inviting particular individuals, they are following the same route as Paizo's open playtest rather than their earlier, closed playtests. I doubt they're actually copying Paizo, however.You guys have GOT to be kidding.
WOTC does an external playtest, and suddenly they're "taking a cue from Paizo?"
I guess you missed the external 4E playtest.
...and the external 3.5E playtest.
...and the external 3E playtest.Unless all RPGA members are WOTC employees? Sweet....hopefully my check is in the mail.
edit: Well, at least you didn't post it in the 4E forum...
The OP failed to mention open and merely said external. So I withdraw my rant.
Though the idea that they're "taking a cue" Paizo is a stretch...
So the PHB "series" is kind of the new "Complete Class" series, right?
Pretty much.
|
|
I think of it as 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, etc.What exactly is the point of a playtest for a rules set that's already been released in its finished form? Are we talking 4.5 already!?They're going to be releasing a new Player's Handbook every year (I think) with new classes, feats, etc.Really? Why would that be, when the new PHBs won't be a revision of the earlier material?
The PHB II, III, etc will be introducing new races, classes etc not rewriting the previous books.
Because you will eventually be unable to play certain adventures unless you have those books, hence they are an update to the game.
Unless they are going to limit all material for 4th Edition to the PHBI?
|
|
Because you will eventually be unable to play certain adventures unless you have those books, hence they are an update to the game.
Unless they are going to limit all material for 4th Edition to the PHBI?
Well they did say that all you need are the three initial core books.
And a lot of their "supporters" made a big deal about all you would ever need to play are the three initial core books.And even though some non-core book material gradually made its way into MM IV and V, very few adventures contained such material without also having all of the related rules to use it fully explained. (Such as giving monsters full stat blocks or reprinting a feat.)
And it would be a major marketing nightmare for them to begin including such materials and have to tell everyone they need to keep buying books to be able to use support products.
But you never know.
I think of it as 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, etc.What exactly is the point of a playtest for a rules set that's already been released in its finished form? Are we talking 4.5 already!?They're going to be releasing a new Player's Handbook every year (I think) with new classes, feats, etc.Really? Why would that be, when the new PHBs won't be a revision of the earlier material?
The PHB II, III, etc will be introducing new races, classes etc not rewriting the previous books.
Because you will eventually be unable to play certain adventures unless you have those books, hence they are an update to the game.
Unless they are going to limit all material for 4th Edition to the PHBI?
New material from supplements will almost certainly be included in adventures with the full (or at least completely usable) rules text. Most of the new rules material in adventures will be monsters anyway, and if you've been paying attention you already know that all monster stat blocks are included in their entirety in all adventures they're used in. You won't have to buy all the new books just to play the adventures.
What exactly is the point of a playtest for a rules set that's already been released in its finished form? Are we talking 4.5 already!?They're going to be releasing a new Player's Handbook every year (I think) with new classes, feats, etc.
You know i was just wondering... if they release a new Player's Handbook every year then if a new player comes along does he start with the first Player's Handbook or does he just buy the current one and all the rules that he needs to play the game with the character types covered in it are present or what? How many years can this kind of model continue?
If they release a new Players Handbook every year and the first one is like $34.95 then the next year a new one comes out and maybe it stays about $34.95 after all it is a Player's Handbook so it will probably be priced about what PHB2 was priced at for 3.5 which will be about another $34.95 and they are probably attempting to eventually creep that price up to around the $39.95 mark. Now if 4th edition survives for 5 years then they are going to have 5 Player's Handbooks in print with a price tag of at least $34.95 each. Now it wasn't bad when they had 3.5 splat books for $29.95 each that essentially added to the game what it seems the new Player's Handbooks will add in 4th edition. Now if anyone has been watching the pricing on the Star Wars SAGA edition books each of the little thin splat books (Starships of the Galaxy, Threats of the Galaxy etc.)are selling for $34.95 the same price that a D&D 4th edition core book costs plus they are smaller books not only in page count but in the new square size they have adopted for these books as well. Less product for more money... hmmm.
Now don't get me wrong I like the Star Wars Saga stuff and if there is a Star Wars game on the market I am usually into buying the books (even if I hardly ever get to play the game). But back to D&D 4e if they have all of these Players Handbooks out there what is that going to do for new players? Not to mention that you may have to eventually buy 5-6 (or more depending on how long 4e is around) $34.95 players handbooks in order to have access to all of the Core Classes for D&D 4e.
Um I don't know about you guys but the GURPS approach is starting to look real attractive to me right now. I don't think this model for 4e will fly over the long term a couple of Core books around which the rest of the system revolves is the best model in my opinion. Also if you factor in the fact... now listen everyone that is so die hard sold on 4e D&D I am not spreading 4e hate but it is a fact for anyone that cares to go look to see that on Amazon.com the average rating for ALL D&D core books at present (I just looked about a half an hour ago)is 3 out of 5 stars and it fluctuates downward to 2.5 stars at times especially for the new Forgotten Realms Campaign Guide. The game that is known as the "leader in the industry" cannot take this kind of popularity hit for very long, a LOT of people listen to those Amazon reviews. In fact it is where I go to read what actual consumers are saying about products even if I am going to buy them elsewhere. The days of hiding behind a pretty book cover are over folks.
Charles
You know i was just wondering... if they release a new Player's Handbook every year then if a new player comes along does he start with the first Player's Handbook or does he just buy the current one and all the rules that he needs to play the game with the character types covered in it are present or what? How many years can this kind of model continue?What exactly is the point of a playtest for a rules set that's already been released in its finished form? Are we talking 4.5 already!?They're going to be releasing a new Player's Handbook every year (I think) with new classes, feats, etc.
New Player's Handbooks will probably not contain the basic rules necessary to play the game, just like the D&D 3.5 PHB 2 didn't contain the rules from the original PHB.
If they release a new Players Handbook every year and the first one is like $34.95 then the next year a new one comes out and maybe it stays about $34.95 after all it is a Player's Handbook so it will probably be priced about what PHB2 was priced at for 3.5 which will be about another $34.95 and they are probably attempting to eventually creep that price up to around the $39.95 mark. Now if 4th edition survives for 5 years then they are going to have 5 Player's Handbooks in print with a price tag of at least $34.95 each. Now it wasn't bad when they had 3.5 splat books for $29.95 each that essentially added to the game what it seems the new Player's Handbooks will add in 4th edition. Now if anyone has been watching the pricing on the Star Wars SAGA edition books each of the little thin splat books (Starships of the Galaxy, Threats of the Galaxy etc.)are selling for $34.95 the same price that a D&D 4th edition core book costs plus they are smaller books not only in page count but in the new square size they have adopted for these books as well. Less product for more money... hmmm.
Now don't get me wrong I like the Star Wars Saga stuff and if there is a Star Wars game on the market I am usually into buying the books (even if I hardly ever get to play the game). But back to D&D 4e if they have all of these Players Handbooks out there what is that...
They don't need to buy the supplemental Player's Handbooks. Just the original. Yeah, they won't have access to some of the base classes, but that was true for previous editions. It's not a change in content, just a change in organization and release schedule.
By the way, Amazon reviews don't mean anything. They're put up by customers, and a small group of people got really incensed with the edition change. Angry people are a lot more likely to go out of their way to post a negative view to vent than the people who actually enjoy the game posting a positive review. The edition wars are over. It's calmed down a lot, but a few people haven't gotten wind of the peace treaty yet.
I wonder if they're going to have the playtest opinions/gripes up on their forum and how they intend to listen to any legitemate critiques with the 4e Avengers there to come to the defense of their girl.
So, does that make you a 3tard?
Objectivity FAIL.
|
|
I wonder if they're going to have the playtest opinions/gripes up on their forum and how they intend to listen to any legitemate critiques with the 4e Avengers there to come to the defense of their girl.So, does that make you a 3tard?
Objectivity FAIL.
no such thing.
didn't you hear?the version war is over.
D&D is dead
long live Pathfinder
I wonder if they're going to have the playtest opinions/gripes up on their forum and how they intend to listen to any legitemate critiques with the 4e Avengers there to come to the defense of their girl.So, does that make you a 3tard?
Objectivity FAIL.
no such thing.
didn't you hear?
the version war is over.
D&D is dead
long live Pathfinder
Er...
So, does that make you a 3tard?
Objectivity FAIL.
No, but it does make you ignorant of the people who use the WotC forums, specifically the self-proclaimed "4E Avengers".
Like you, they favor ad hominem attacks on anyone who questions any element of 4E.
Gosh all this misdirection is getting boring...
"ad hominem attacks?"
I pointed out that someone *else* was namecalling. You might want to find a dictionary buddy.
|
|
So, does that make you a 3tard?
Objectivity FAIL.
No, but it does make you ignorant of the people who use the WotC forums, specifically the self-proclaimed "4E Avengers".
Like you, they favor ad hominem attacks on anyone who questions any element of 4E.Gosh all this misdirection is getting boring...
"ad hominem attacks?"
I pointed out that someone *else* was namecalling. You might want to find a dictionary buddy.
Just curious,... if the people in question call themselves the 4e Avengers, why is it name calling to use that term to describe who is meant. That would be like saying that calling someone a "Left-Field Loony" is namecalling and yet, in Pittsburgh, there is a group that proudly named themselves that and the Baseball announcers call them by that title all the time.
So, does that make you a 3tard?
Objectivity FAIL.
No, but it does make you ignorant of the people who use the WotC forums, specifically the self-proclaimed "4E Avengers".
Like you, they favor ad hominem attacks on anyone who questions any element of 4E.Gosh all this misdirection is getting boring...
"ad hominem attacks?"
I pointed out that someone *else* was namecalling. You might want to find a dictionary buddy.
Just curious,... if the people in question call themselves the 4e Avengers, why is it name calling to use that term to describe who is meant. That would be like saying that calling someone a "Left-Field Loony" is namecalling and yet, in Pittsburgh, there is a group that proudly named themselves that and the Baseball announcers call them by that title all the time.
I'm sorry. I didn't realize there is actually a group over there that literally call themselves that. I thought it was being used as a disparaging term, and so I thought calling them that was on par with calling someone a "3tard" or "4ron."
|
|
So, does that make you a 3tard?
Objectivity FAIL.
No, but it does make you ignorant of the people who use the WotC forums, specifically the self-proclaimed "4E Avengers".
Like you, they favor ad hominem attacks on anyone who questions any element of 4E.Gosh all this misdirection is getting boring...
"ad hominem attacks?"
I pointed out that someone *else* was namecalling. You might want to find a dictionary buddy.
Just curious,... if the people in question call themselves the 4e Avengers, why is it name calling to use that term to describe who is meant. That would be like saying that calling someone a "Left-Field Loony" is namecalling and yet, in Pittsburgh, there is a group that proudly named themselves that and the Baseball announcers call them by that title all the time.
I'm sorry. I didn't realize there is actually a gruop over there that literally call themselves that. I thought it was being used as a disparaging term, and so I thought calling them that was on par with calling someone a "3tard" or "4ron."
To be fair, it can be both. There is such a group, but, owing to the actions of said group, it is also a term of abuse for those who, in the view of the poster, defend 4E with overzealous vigour.
To be fair, it can be both. There is such a group, but, owing to the actions of said group, it is also a term of abuse for those who, in the view of the poster, defend 4E with overzealous vigour.So, does that make you a 3tard?
Objectivity FAIL.
No, but it does make you ignorant of the people who use the WotC forums, specifically the self-proclaimed "4E Avengers".
Like you, they favor ad hominem attacks on anyone who questions any element of 4E.Gosh all this misdirection is getting boring...
"ad hominem attacks?"
I pointed out that someone *else* was namecalling. You might want to find a dictionary buddy.
Just curious,... if the people in question call themselves the 4e Avengers, why is it name calling to use that term to describe who is meant. That would be like saying that calling someone a "Left-Field Loony" is namecalling and yet, in Pittsburgh, there is a group that proudly named themselves that and the Baseball announcers call them by that title all the time.
I'm sorry. I didn't realize there is actually a gruop over there that literally call themselves that. I thought it was being used as a disparaging term, and so I thought calling them that was on par with calling someone a "3tard" or "4ron."
Understood, but sans evidence I must assume the former.
Neither of those tests was open. By opening this one out to the general community rather than inviting particular individuals, they are following the same route as Paizo's open playtest rather than their earlier, closed playtests. I doubt they're actually copying Paizo, however.
I doubt that, too. They might attempt to (and I'm not even sure about that), but they won't succeed.
"4ron."
Didn't know that one yet. I knew about 4e-diots, but 4ron's not bad, either.
|
|
Understood, but sans evidence I must assume the former.To be fair, it can be both. There is such a group, but, owing to the actions of said group, it is also a term of abuse for those who, in the view of the poster, defend 4E with overzealous vigour.So, does that make you a 3tard?
Objectivity FAIL.
No, but it does make you ignorant of the people who use the WotC forums, specifically the self-proclaimed "4E Avengers".
Like you, they favor ad hominem attacks on anyone who questions any element of 4E.Gosh all this misdirection is getting boring...
"ad hominem attacks?"
I pointed out that someone *else* was namecalling. You might want to find a dictionary buddy.
Just curious,... if the people in question call themselves the 4e Avengers, why is it name calling to use that term to describe who is meant. That would be like saying that calling someone a "Left-Field Loony" is namecalling and yet, in Pittsburgh, there is a group that proudly named themselves that and the Baseball announcers call them by that title all the time.
I'm sorry. I didn't realize there is actually a gruop over there that literally call themselves that. I thought it was being used as a disparaging term, and so I thought calling them that was on par with calling someone a "3tard" or "4ron."
I heard there's a group over there dedicated to wiping out any and all possible negative posting about 4e. I've heard it many times.
Since I have no personal proof, maybe that in and of itsself is inflammatory, but this 4e Avenger crew is who I was talking about.What I find ludicrous about them is this:
IIRC, CWM went over there to ask about some minor 4e criticism he had, and....somebody got snarky with him. CWM, correct me if I'm wrong, it just stuck in my mind because you're a pretty vocal 4e proponent; attacking you as a threat to 4e is ludicrous. IF there is such a group, and IF that's who went after CWM, wow....they're operating at cross purposes.
I thought the Dragon Interview was pretty punkass, but in the spirit of harmony, maybe I'll shut up about it.
I have my Pathfinder stuff now, and I'm squared away with that. I don't care about 4e one way or another, I'm good with live-and-let-live.
Additionally, if people are over here at Paizo talking about 4e, WTF.....THEY'RE OVER HERE AT PAIZO. Maybe they'll buy something so essentially don't give them a bunch of crap.
I thought they were already taking cues from paizo.. started with adventure paths ya know? :)
You mean like the one that started with Sunless Citadel?
(Ok, so that was an AP in name only, but it's not as if Paizo came up with the idea of a linked campaign now is it? They just did it best :))
No, but it does make you ignorant of the people who use the WotC forums, specifically the self-proclaimed "4E Avengers".
Like you, they favor ad hominem attacks on anyone who questions any element of 4E.
They do this for fun?
I don't check their message boards very often. Seems like a lot of negativity whenever I do but that sounds a little off the wall.
This is absolutely not true. There's a lot of value in listening to feeback that disagrees with their already defined plans and philosophy. If a company gets lots of negative feedback, or suggestions that go off in a different direction than they had planned, that is an early warning sign that their market might not like their plans. If they ignore the feedback that disagrees with their original thoughts, they run the risk of not having a product that meets their market expectations. Unfortunately, corporate america is full of companies that ignore market research that disagrees with their plans, and only uses the research that reinforces their plans. I'm not saying that the 4E playtest did have a significant portion of feedback that was ignored, since I don't have a clue, but as a general statement, taking negative feedback, or feedback that diverges from your expectations seriously is one of the most important reasons to get external feedback in the first place.
My personal take on this in relation to 4E is that WOTC didn't listen enough to the feedback that suggested going in different directions, but that the feedback in that category wasn't a majority. I also get the impression that their playtesting was skewed by using a self selecting group that would be pre-disposed towards a favorable impression, by using primarily playtesters that already had strong relationships with WOTC (freelancers and those active in the RPGA.) While those are valuable groups, it would have been interesting to see the playtest results if WOTC had opened the playtest effort up to a larger percentage of gamers who weren't as active in the WOTC community.
To a very significant extent I disagree.
I've done game creation for a OPART scenario called Fall Grau and my experience with creating and doing that was that you have to be pretty picky about the kinds of feedback your listening too. You can't implement everyones suggestions. The kinds of suggestions you tend to get are often going in many different directions. Attempting to incorporate everything will lead to a mish mash that no one will like.
Fundamentally I feel you have to implement your vision of what the game is going to be and how its going to play. What you really need from feedback is not what kind of game to make but information that will reduce the snags in your vision and ideas that will supplement and improve your vision.
The play test process is not where you decide your vision of a game, that needs to be done by the designers prior to play test. Playtesting is were you work out the snags and hopefully polish the product.
I think this idea is well supported by the 3.0 feedback process. Monte tells us that if he and his team had listened to the fanbase we would never have gotten 3rd edition as we know it. A large chunk of the play testers were, to a very large extent, angling to make 2.5 edition and not 3rd.
It may also be one of the reasons we got 3.5 so hard on the heals of 3rd. According to Erik Mona the general consensus after 3rd was launched was that the designers could have taken things further. It would seem that they got scared by the feedback that was angry about them killing sacred cows from 1st and 2nd edition and pulled back on their vision.
Of course having released 3rd to wide acclaim the consensus at Wizards is that you have to be ready and willing to ignore feedback if you want to make the game you envision. Obviously that was what was true of 3rd and it was the philosophy underpinning the play tests for 4th. Only time will tell if the lessons they felt they learned from 3rd really were applicable to 4th of course.
Neither of those tests was open. By opening this one out to the general community rather than inviting particular individuals, they are following the same route as Paizo's open playtest rather than their earlier, closed playtests. I doubt they're actually copying Paizo, however.
I don't really think their following Paizo either. They have been talking about doing this for some time. I'm not sure if their first mention of the idea predated Paizo saying they were doing a playtest or not but I think they were around the same time - and presumably both companies had been thinking about this for a while before implementing the idea.
I think its simply convergent thinking. Both companies have designs that make the idea appealing. Paizo is very centred on their message board and has lots of intelligent posters and tons of in depth thought provoking debates on 3.5 have taken place here. It just makes sense for them to use these posters as play testers for PfRPG.
WotC has a massive message board community and a house organ in Dragon that regularly shows off content. Dragon, right back to its earliest days, has always been a springboard for new content in D&D. Now historically we'd see some stuff in Dragon and maybe the best of it would be incorporated into a splat book without that much feed back but the set up was there. However with the change to an electronic format they have a strong set up for implementing this idea and I'd be very surprised if they had not been thinking about this as one use for Dragon when they choose to take Dragon back from Paizo and turn it back into a house organ. My bet is if we were to search internal WotC memo's and such we'd find some genesis of this idea in their internal debate for taking back Dragon and making it electronic.
There is nothing a large percentage of the WotC fan base loves more then to tear classes apart and make sick builds. Since 4E has play balance as an absolute mantra it just makes sense for them to utilize the fan base to check the rules for balance. Its obvously good for their bottom line as well - since they get to write an article for Dragon and then just update that article for the splat book. Saves them work and the fan base just eats it up. If they actually implement some suggestions from the fan base the fan base will get warm fuzzies from the experience as well. They've known since 3rd that the Fan base is good at taking their material from splat books and breaking their game with it. I'd be very surprised if they had not thought to utilize this as a resource when they were contemplating what they planned to do with 4E.
Hence my guess is that WotC probably had a very basic idea of what they were going to do here prior to them ever letting on that their even was going to be a 4th edition. It was likely one of several driving forces that led to WotC telling Paizo that WotC did not intend to allow Paizo to renew their contract for Dungeon and Dragon.
Because you will eventually be unable to play certain adventures unless you have those books, hence they are an update to the game.
Unless they are going to limit all material for 4th Edition to the PHBI?
Well they did say that all you need are the three initial core books.
And a lot of their "supporters" made a big deal about all you would ever need to play are the three initial core books.
And even though some non-core book material gradually made its way into MM IV and V, very few adventures contained such material without also having all of the related rules to use it fully explained. (Such as giving monsters full stat blocks or reprinting a feat.)
And it would be a major marketing nightmare for them to begin including such materials and have to tell everyone they need to keep buying books to be able to use support products.But you never know.
On the other hand they are calling books like Monster Manual II and PHB II 'core' and making that point hard by including Gnomes in PHB II and Frost Giants in MMII. I think Jal Dorak is more right then wrong. I think you have to keep buying the books if you want to use all the material from varous adventures.
The problem WotC faces here is if they just stick with initial core then the fan base that buys the extra books complains that the material never gets used. If you expand beyond just core you make those that only want to buy the core books unhappy. In the end WotC has to choose who to support - the fans that buy everything or the fans that only buy initial core. I suspect that, in the end, thats a pretty easy choice. Support the fans that want to keep giving you money over the ones that are not so inclined to do so.
In the end I suspect that we might see some attempts to say 'replace monster X with Y' if you don't have Monster Manual IV but thats likely all one will get and it probably won't always work really well - though the design goal of making everything fit onto little stat cards that easily fit into adventures will help in some cases.
In others though - well if the module includes Ninja's they are not going to reprint all the rules for the Ninja power source - you'll just have to either muddle through or replace that part of the adventure with rogues...or you could go out and buy the splat book with Ninja's in it. WotC would really like it if the last option was the one you choose to go with and their adventure may reflect that desire.
Thats my guess on how this will work.
|
|
In others though - well if the module includes Ninja's they are not going to reprint all the rules for the Ninja power source - you'll just have to either muddle through or replace that part of the adventure with rogues...or you could go out and buy the splat book with Ninja's in it. WotC would really like it if the last option was the one you choose to go with and their adventure may reflect that desire.
Thats my guess on how this will work.
While my schadenfreude gizzard would no doubt enjoy the refill, in this case it will have to be disappointed.
The layout for monsters and NPCs simply includes all the relevant information needed to use each and every power they have. There is no need for extra information to be reprinted. That was one of their design plans, to have monster stat blocks with no references back to the character rules. It will allow them to include as much new material, including monsters using new new classes, without you needing to own the book they come from.
Of course they could decide to spontaneously stop including the stat blocks for ordinary monsters.
And players may get all angsty about fighting critters with access to powers they can never get. (Although that can happen now.)
But with their basic plan, they can include all the new material they like with monsters in new adventures and it will never look like anything but random new abilities.
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
[JoelF847 wrote:
This is absolutely not true. There's a lot of value in listening to feeback that disagrees with their already defined plans and philosophy. If a company gets lots of negative feedback, or suggestions that go off in a different direction than they had planned, that is an early warning sign that their market might not like their plans. If they ignore the feedback that disagrees with their original thoughts, they run the risk of not having a product that meets their market expectations. Unfortunately, corporate america is full of companies that ignore market research that disagrees with their plans, and only uses the research that reinforces their plans. I'm not saying that the 4E playtest did have a significant portion of feedback that was ignored, since I don't have a clue, but as a general statement, taking negative feedback, or feedback that diverges from your expectations seriously is one of the most important reasons to get external feedback in the first place.My personal take on this in relation to 4E is that WOTC didn't listen enough to the feedback that suggested going in different directions, but that the feedback in that category wasn't a majority. I also get the impression that their playtesting was skewed by using a self selecting group that would be pre-disposed towards a favorable impression, by using primarily playtesters that already had strong relationships with WOTC (freelancers and those active in the RPGA.) While those are valuable groups, it would have been interesting to see the playtest results if WOTC had opened the playtest effort up to a larger percentage of gamers who weren't as active in the WOTC community.
To a very significant extent I disagree.
I've done game creation for a OPART scenario called Fall Grau and my experience with creating and doing that was that you have to be pretty picky about the kinds of feedback your listening too. You can't implement everyones suggestions. The kinds of suggestions you tend to get are often going in many different directions. Attempting to incorporate everything will lead to a mish mash that no one will like.
Fundamentally I feel you have to implement your vision of what the game is going to be and how its going to play. What you really need from feedback is not what kind of game to make but information that will reduce the snags in your vision and ideas that will supplement and improve your vision.
The play test process is not where you decide your vision of a game, that needs to be done by the designers prior to play test. Playtesting is were you work out the snags and hopefully polish the product.
I think this idea is well supported by the 3.0 feedback process. Monte tells us that if he and his team had listened to the fanbase we would never have gotten 3rd edition as we know it. A large chunk of the play testers were, to a very large extent, angling to make 2.5 edition and not 3rd.
It may also be one of the reasons we got 3.5 so hard on the heals of 3rd. According to Erik Mona the general consensus after 3rd was launched was that the designers could have taken things further. It would seem that they got scared by the feedback that was angry about them killing sacred cows from 1st and 2nd edition and pulled back on their vision.
Of course having released 3rd to wide acclaim the consensus at Wizards is that you have to be ready and willing to ignore feedback if you want to make the game you envision. Obviously that was what was true of 3rd and it was the philosophy underpinning the play tests for 4th. Only time will tell if the lessons they felt they learned from 3rd really were applicable to 4th of course.
I'm not saying that they should have taken the advise of divergent views, what I'm saying is that they shouldn't have ignored them. If you simply playtest or do market research and discard the views that disagree with your preconceived notions, then you're missing the point, and throwing out valuable information.
If you're creating a work of art for it's own sake, then by all means, stick to your vision. However, if you're looking to make a marketable product, then you need to pay attention to negative feedback as well, and carefully measure it before deciding if you should change your vision or not. I'm not saying that WOTC ingored such feedback, but if they did, then they made a mistake. Ingore simply means not paying attention to, and it's different from paying attention and still making a decision.
Neither of us can really know how WOTC chose to use their playtest feedback, nor the ratio of positive vs. negative feedback. But if they had a skewed set of playtesters, or if they didn't put enough weight on the negative feedback, then they did their customer base and shareholders a disservice. In all honesty, they probably should have had a wider playtest much earlier than they did, since they would have had time to make more changes in reaction to feedback. By the time they made their announcement about 4E and started external playtesting, it was too late, even if they had come to a decision that they should change directions.
In others though - well if the module includes Ninja's they are not going to reprint all the rules for the Ninja power source - you'll just have to either muddle through or replace that part of the adventure with rogues...or you could go out and buy the splat book with Ninja's in it. WotC would really like it if the last option was the one you choose to go with and their adventure may reflect that desire.
Thats my guess on how this will work.
While my schadenfreude gizzard would no doubt enjoy the refill, in this case it will have to be disappointed.
The layout for monsters and NPCs simply includes all the relevant information needed to use each and every power they have. There is no need for extra information to be reprinted. That was one of their design plans, to have monster stat blocks with no references back to the character rules. It will allow them to include as much new material, including monsters using new new classes, without you needing to own the book they come from.
Of course they could decide to spontaneously stop including the stat blocks for ordinary monsters.
And players may get all angsty about fighting critters with access to powers they can never get. (Although that can happen now.)
But with their basic plan, they can include all the new material they like with monsters in new adventures and it will never look like anything but random new abilities.
Eh, your probably right here. I can't really think of anything much that they would stick in the rules that could not be put on a stat card. I suppose if they implement castle building rules in one of the splat books that would not work on a little stat card but most things will work and the splat books won't really be necessary. You might not understand why Ninja's can do what Ninja's can do without the splat book but it will probably still be possible to run them without that understanding so long as you know what they need to hit and what their powers do when they hit.