Dear Next Developers,

301 posts / 0 new
Last post
Dear Next Developers,

I respectfully would like to request that you guys give the 4e fans some reassurance that their desires for a 4e playstyle module will either happen, or let them know now that it won't. I think it's fair for them to get extra reassurment. Some fans have turned their frustration into vitriol that is hurtful to the playtest and I understand why it might seem like feeding and reacting to such behavior could be bad for the development team as well. But the vast majority have not been so disruptive.  I think a little bit of information on this subject could assist everyone in our attempts to collaborate on the playtest. The more time we can spend discussing the system, the rules and the objectives the better we all are served. Perhaps a Q&A maybe?

On a side note, I love the principal ideas behind 5e, it's going to be a great game. More importantly, you deserve our gratitude for opening this version of D&D to the players for development, it's an honor, and thanks.

-Zago



 Side Note: This forum post could be made more effective if others supported it, and there was some sense of apology when appropriate. 

My mind is a deal-breaker.

I've enjoy the playtest and am grateful to be a part of it. I can understand that a nod to the 4e fans would go a long ways, but I'm okay w/the R&D taking their time. They have to test boundaries on one side before testing the other. I get that's the process and am happy to go along with it... providing feedback as we go
"What's stupid is when people decide that X is true - even when it is demonstrable untrue or 100% against what we've said - and run around complaining about that. That's just a breakdown of basic human reasoning." -Mike Mearls
I would suggest maybe posing this as a question to the Q&A article that happens each week. I don't know how effective that would be - it depends, no doubt, on how many questions they get, and how many repeat questions (thus making that something they feel they should address), but that may be the best option.

As for the apology part, I've often said I'm supportive of the playtest and I'm fine with the overall direction (even if this or that minor thing isn't to my liking - which makes sense in a playtest) DDN is taking, so I don't think I have anything to apologize for. :-)

But, again, I do appreciate what the developers are doing, and I hope they aren't being discouraged by the haters who are just going to complain for the sake of complaining. 

For those confused on how DDN's modular rules might work, this may provide some insight: http://www.tor.com/blogs/2012/11/the-world-of-darkness-shines-when-it-abandons-canon

@mikemearls: Uhhh... do you really not see all the 3e/4e that's basically the entire core system?

 

It is entirely unnecessary to denigrate someone else's approach to gaming in order to validate your own.

There are times when people have said rude and hateful things about the developers, thats theonly thing I would suggest people should apologize for.

My mind is a deal-breaker.

I think they might make some classes that have that 4e feel?
Then we can have a 4e vs 5e character stand off. :D
There are times when people have said rude and hateful things about the developers, thats theonly thing I would suggest people should apologize for.



I absolutely agree. My comment was meant to be a bit tongue-in-cheek, which likely didn't come across well. My apologies.

Also, I like the overall tone and intent of this thread. It's much better than the endless complaints (in general, not pointed at you). Thank you.

For those confused on how DDN's modular rules might work, this may provide some insight: http://www.tor.com/blogs/2012/11/the-world-of-darkness-shines-when-it-abandons-canon

@mikemearls: Uhhh... do you really not see all the 3e/4e that's basically the entire core system?

 

It is entirely unnecessary to denigrate someone else's approach to gaming in order to validate your own.

I think the Devs are taking aspects of all the editions, and in different ways with different classes/races, the game will feel like whatever edition you are looking for. If this is done RIGHT, it will be modular enough that any table can feel pretty close to whatever edition they are shooting for.
Posting to Q&A is great idea! Love it.

How do I do it? 

My mind is a deal-breaker.

Unfortunately, you don't. It's up to the staff to choose the three questions that will be answered each week.

In memory of wrecan and his Unearthed Wrecana.

5e should strongly stay away from "I don't like it, so you can't have it either."

Posting to Q&A is great idea! Love it.

How do I do it? 



According to the small section at the bottom of the Q&A articles, they look through the forums and twitter and so forth to find questions, or you can email them at dndinsider@wizards.com so maybe try that, I guess.

Hope that helps! 

For those confused on how DDN's modular rules might work, this may provide some insight: http://www.tor.com/blogs/2012/11/the-world-of-darkness-shines-when-it-abandons-canon

@mikemearls: Uhhh... do you really not see all the 3e/4e that's basically the entire core system?

 

It is entirely unnecessary to denigrate someone else's approach to gaming in order to validate your own.

Thanks! So if everybody started just asking, how the process for modules is going to work, and when it is going to happen that might be sufficient?

My mind is a deal-breaker.

Possibly, I suppose. I don't really know the process any further than what I read on the Q&A article (speaking of which, I think we should get another one of those....tomorrow?).

For those confused on how DDN's modular rules might work, this may provide some insight: http://www.tor.com/blogs/2012/11/the-world-of-darkness-shines-when-it-abandons-canon

@mikemearls: Uhhh... do you really not see all the 3e/4e that's basically the entire core system?

 

It is entirely unnecessary to denigrate someone else's approach to gaming in order to validate your own.

Every thursday
My two copper.
Dear Next Developers,
I respectfully would like to request that you guys give the 4e fans some reassurance that their desires for a 4e playstyle module will either happen, or let them know now that it won't. I think it's fair for them to get extra reassurment.


We've been told many, many times of the existence of the tactical module. I fail to see how repeating that it has been planned and is in the works yet again will have any effect.
Yes it will be nice to see, and yes we all want it to be good. But they can't reference it every other month, especially not at the expense of every other question or concern. There's so much we don't know about 5e yet, and I'd rather hear something new than a bi-weekly update and reminder of a single rules option. 

And getting it out early, when the base rules are not ready, to say nothing of the module itself, will only do more harm. 
Before posting, ask yourself WWWS: 
What Would Wrecan Say?

5 Minute Workday

My Webcomic
Updated Tue & Thur

 

I respectfully would like to request that you guys give the 4e fans some reassurance that their desires for a 4e playstyle module will either happen, or let them know now that it won't.



They'll NEVER answer this, at least at this stage, as the vague hope of inclusion is the only keeping me (and many other 4E fans I suspect) interested enough to make the dream of uniting the fanbase's cashflow into Hasbro's pockets look vaguely plausible. If they told the truth (answering either way would drive one faction or the other away), Hasbro might decide to just cut its losses and shelve the whole thing here and now (it IS Christmas Layoff Season in Hasbro-land after all).

Frankly, this playtest has gone so badly in my gaming circles that I'm the only one even still following the 5E playtest. The group I was actually testing with has chosen to start a RIFTS campaign instead (its easier to justify bad mechanics in a game that hasn't been updated in more than twenty years... and there's no vancian casting in Rifts) and no one else I know is interested in even trying it (certainly no one in the multiple 4E campaigns I'm in want to).
Dear Next Developers,
I respectfully would like to request that you guys give the 4e fans some reassurance that their desires for a 4e playstyle module will either happen, or let them know now that it won't. I think it's fair for them to get extra reassurment.


We've been told many, many times of the existence of the tactical module. I fail to see how repeating that it has been planned and is in the works yet again will have any effect.
Yes it will be nice to see, and yes we all want it to be good. But they can't reference it every other month, especially not at the expense of every other question or concern. There's so much we don't know about 5e yet, and I'd rather hear something new than a bi-weekly update and reminder of a single rules option. 

And getting it out early, when the base rules are not ready, to say nothing of the module itself, will only do more harm. 



A tactical module isn't going to do much on its own for 4e fans. At least not this one. It will be nice to have tactical rules, but that isn't the main draw of 4e for a lot of people.
I think a healing module that is more similar to 4e might be nice. More HD for healing (taking the half +1 as the lowest value) w/ +Con score, not con mod, @ level 1 might offer a more 4e playstyle. But, could there be different healing modules at one table? That seems tricky...
I know other threads have discussed what wrecan pointed out... what is tactical? Is it facing rules? Is it round to round resource mgmt?
I don't think tactical alone will solve a lot of 4e fans' problems, but it might help swing things in the right direction.
"What's stupid is when people decide that X is true - even when it is demonstrable untrue or 100% against what we've said - and run around complaining about that. That's just a breakdown of basic human reasoning." -Mike Mearls
Dear Next Developers,
I respectfully would like to request that you guys give the 4e fans some reassurance that their desires for a 4e playstyle module will either happen, or let them know now that it won't. I think it's fair for them to get extra reassurment.


We've been told many, many times of the existence of the tactical module. I fail to see how repeating that it has been planned and is in the works yet again will have any effect.
Yes it will be nice to see, and yes we all want it to be good. But they can't reference it every other month, especially not at the expense of every other question or concern. There's so much we don't know about 5e yet, and I'd rather hear something new than a bi-weekly update and reminder of a single rules option. 

And getting it out early, when the base rules are not ready, to say nothing of the module itself, will only do more harm. 




I'm not asking IF it's happening, I would like them to make available information about what the plan is for it. Like... how it's slated into the design process things like that. I think it could help alleviate some pressure here for the people assiciated with the play test. I personally am not interested, but I think it;s a good thing for the community, and might ease some tension. That's all. 

All we have heard is intangeable information, ie that it will happen. My daughter gets frustrated when she wants to go to the store, and I say "We will," and shes says "But when dad," and I say, "later." She's knows we will, but still is frustrated with such an open-ended response.

My mind is a deal-breaker.

I respectfully would like to request that you guys give the 4e fans some reassurance that their desires for a 4e playstyle module will either happen, or let them know now that it won't.



They'll NEVER answer this, at least at this stage, as the vague hope of inclusion is the only keeping me (and many other 4E fans I suspect) interested enough to make the dream of uniting the fanbase's cashflow into Hasbro's pockets look vaguely plausible. If they told the truth (answering either way would drive one faction or the other away), Hasbro might decide to just cut its losses and shelve the whole thing here and now (it IS Christmas Layoff Season in Hasbro-land after all).

Frankly, this playtest has gone so badly in my gaming circles that I'm the only one even still following the 5E playtest. The group I was actually testing with has chosen to start a RIFTS campaign instead (its easier to justify bad mechanics in a game that hasn't been updated in more than twenty years... and there's no vancian casting in Rifts) and no one else I know is interested in even trying it (certainly no one in the multiple 4E campaigns I'm in want to).



We've seen the opposite effect at our LGS, and have seen many people's interest peeked. Including many people who had retired from D&D (thinking the well had dried), and many who have never been interested in RPG before. 

They say that the number of survey responders is going up with each playtest, so I think your experience seems to be unusual to say the least. An important thing to note is that cost of doing an open playetest is much more then closed development, maybe D&D is not the best funded division of wotc, it seems clear they are willing to go out on a limb to support this endeavor. Your comments seem less about what's happening to the game and more about what you want, out of bitterness. Sorry, but leave your fantasies in your games.
 

My mind is a deal-breaker.

Dear Next Developers,
I respectfully would like to request that you guys give the 4e fans some reassurance that their desires for a 4e playstyle module will either happen, or let them know now that it won't. I think it's fair for them to get extra reassurment.


We've been told many, many times of the existence of the tactical module. I fail to see how repeating that it has been planned and is in the works yet again will have any effect.
Yes it will be nice to see, and yes we all want it to be good. But they can't reference it every other month, especially not at the expense of every other question or concern. There's so much we don't know about 5e yet, and I'd rather hear something new than a bi-weekly update and reminder of a single rules option. 

And getting it out early, when the base rules are not ready, to say nothing of the module itself, will only do more harm. 


I'm not asking IF it's happening, I would like them to make available information about what the plan is for it. Like... how it's slated into the design process things like that. I think it could help alleviate some pressure here for the people assiciated with the play test. I personally am not interested, but I think it;s a good thing for the community, and might ease some tension. That's all. 

All we have heard is intangeable information, ie that it will happen. My daughter gets frustrated when she wants to go to the store, and I say "We will," and shes says "But when dad," and I say, "later." She's knows we will, but still is frustrated with such an open-ended response.


We already have much more information regarding the tactical module thank any other module (I can't even think of examples of other confirmed modules) and you want more?

The catch is, the plans are changing. Had you asked in May they would have said "oh, we just started work on that." Then they threw out all that work when they had to redesign the fighter. I think they learned just how much things can change, and how much work the Core was. Right now, I doubt they have a firm time table for when the module will be started, let alone released or what shape the final product will be in. 

Plus, let's face it, Wizards is a ridiculously tight-lipped company. Even when it bites them in the ass and makes it harder for freelancers to write products. This goes well beyond the D&D Brand, which is staffed by open and chatty folk. They likely can't say anything.  
Before posting, ask yourself WWWS: 
What Would Wrecan Say?

5 Minute Workday

My Webcomic
Updated Tue & Thur

 

Dear Next Developers,
I respectfully would like to request that you guys give the 4e fans some reassurance that their desires for a 4e playstyle module will either happen, or let them know now that it won't. I think it's fair for them to get extra reassurment.


We've been told many, many times of the existence of the tactical module. I fail to see how repeating that it has been planned and is in the works yet again will have any effect.
Yes it will be nice to see, and yes we all want it to be good. But they can't reference it every other month, especially not at the expense of every other question or concern. There's so much we don't know about 5e yet, and I'd rather hear something new than a bi-weekly update and reminder of a single rules option. 

And getting it out early, when the base rules are not ready, to say nothing of the module itself, will only do more harm. 


I'm not asking IF it's happening, I would like them to make available information about what the plan is for it. Like... how it's slated into the design process things like that. I think it could help alleviate some pressure here for the people assiciated with the play test. I personally am not interested, but I think it;s a good thing for the community, and might ease some tension. That's all. 

All we have heard is intangeable information, ie that it will happen. My daughter gets frustrated when she wants to go to the store, and I say "We will," and shes says "But when dad," and I say, "later." She's knows we will, but still is frustrated with such an open-ended response.


We already have much more information regarding the tactical module thank any other module (I can't even think of examples of other confirmed modules) and you want more?

The catch is, the plans are changing. Had you asked in May they would have said "oh, we just started work on that." Then they threw out all that work when they had to redesign the fighter. I think they learned just how much things can change, and how much work the Core was. Right now, I doubt they have a firm time table for when the module will be started, let alone released or what shape the final product will be in. 

Plus, let's face it, Wizards is a ridiculously tight-lipped company. Even when it bites them in the ass and makes it harder for freelancers to write products. This goes well beyond the D&D Brand, which is staffed by open and chatty folk. They likely can't say anything.  



I agree. Look, I just want people to stop being so sad, and if lifting the komono on the plans for the tactical module cools some blokes down, that woudl be great. 

I understand the plans are changing... so is the playtest. Why can't they assert their plans and then assert the amendments as they happen? Or at least talk about it in some way, possibly it wouldn't help at all.

I disagree with your third paragraph. I have spent years of my life dedicated to warhammer hobby, and one of the things that has been most exciting about being part of this playtest is the unbeliveable openess of the developers. Part of the reason I support the playtest like I do, is because I want it to become a model for other gaming companies. 

My mind is a deal-breaker.

The problem is, the rants aren't all about the need for a tactical module.
Just as Essentials didn't bring back those who rejected 4E wholecloth, a single module won't placate those who prefer 4E for a plethora of reasons. 
A tactical module will get those who like tactical combat interested.

The reasons some people like 4E are quite varied, ranging from the tactical depth, to class balance, to a lack of fire and forget daily spellslots, to a unified mechanic, to survivability of starting characters and even their role in the campaign. Then there are those who have favoured enemy: Sacred Cows, and retain pre-WotC attitudes to how one socially interacts with favoured enemies.
I have an answer for you, it may even be the truth.
I'd be willing to take a bet that right now at this exact moment there aren't any plans for anything other than how to make the rogue better. I imagine everything else has been placed on hold until this problem is solved. But seriously I don't think WotC knows what is going to happen with modulars. I"m pretty sure they realize that module elements aren't going to be profitable, so how to impliment them is going to be an issue. I wouldn't be surprised if all those boxes of alternate rules don't end up being the modules that were promised. Maybe I'm not being fair, but WotC does need to make a profit, and I don't see individual modular books being a profitable adventure.

Also I'm pretty sure at the moment Magic the Gathering is flipping the bill for D&D, otherwise there is no way that a company could actually go 2 years in development of a game and not selling product. (Yeah so they made those special editions and the board games and dungeon command, but I doubt any of them are bringing in enough revenue to keep the staff of D&D from being cut.)

But with as much in the core game as is being changed, it is a little bit much to expect them to have any idea what is going to happen in an optional part of the game that they have no idea is even going to be needed after the product is finished. Though there have been comments that Mearls was writting a tactical module, I still think it is a bit neive to expect concrete plans at this point in the design. 
Dear Next Developers,

I respectfully would like to request that you guys give the 4e fans some reassurance that their desires for a 4e playstyle module will either happen, or let them know now that it won't. I think it's fair for them to get extra reassurment. Some fans have turned their frustration into vitriol that is hurtful to the playtest and I understand why it might seem like feeding and reacting to such behavior could be bad for the development team as well. But the vast majority have not been so disruptive.  I think a little bit of information on this subject could assist everyone in our attempts to collaborate on the playtest. The more time we can spend discussing the system, the rules and the objectives the better we all are served. Perhaps a Q&A maybe? 



WotC remembers when it was honest during the last edition change. WotC shared with the public exactly how they viewed 3ed and where they wanted to go with 4ed, and people are still mad about that honesty.

This time around, WotC is holding its cards close to its chest. They aren't committing to anything until the public clearly indicates what they want. They know what they want (Bounded Accuracy), but want people to sign off on it before they carve it in stone. They are afraid to offend anyone without the support of the majority backing up their decisions. 

So I highly doubt that WotC will attempt to clarify their position in a way that could drive people away from the playtest. The current state of ambiguity serves their purposes well. 

"Ah, the age-old conundrum. Defenders of a game are too blind to see it's broken, and critics are too idiotic to see that it isn't." - Brian McCormick

They say that the number of survey responders is going up with each playtest, so I think your experience seems to be unusual to say the least. An important thing to note is that cost of doing an open playetest is much more then closed development, maybe D&D is not the best funded division of wotc, it seems clear they are willing to go out on a limb to support this endeavor. Your comments seem less about what's happening to the game and more about what you want, out of bitterness. Sorry, but leave your fantasies in your games.
 



That's not in fact what they said.  They said that the number of playtesters kept increasing.  That doesn't tell us that the number of survey responses have kept going up.  I happen to know that I am still counted as a playtester but I haven't bothered sending in a response for the past two iterations (why bother?)

-Polaris

If they're concealing something the community won't accept, it'll serve them until people page through the material at their local hobby shop before buying it. Then all the hurt brought on by dashed hopes will be directed at the entity that was responsible for those dashed hopes. If they decide to pull the curtain back before the playtest, then there will probably be a large drop off of people from the playtest.
There are times when people have said rude and hateful things about the developers, thats theonly thing I would suggest people should apologize for.



What one person thinks is rude and hateful is what another person thinks is normal conversation. I for instance don't use profanity, but others do. So are they being rude by using profanity when conversing with me, without them knowing my preference? Of course not.

How about you start a thread and quote when people are being rude and maybe point out what you think is rude.

As far as I know stating facts like "The developers don't seem to understand what made 4E liked by its fans." is not being rude. Its stating a fact.

Not everything that said is negative is rude. That's just something a lot of posters need to get over. If you have no negative feedback, then you get no improvement...Smile
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
Dear Next Developers,
I respectfully would like to request that you guys give the 4e fans some reassurance that their desires for a 4e playstyle module will either happen, or let them know now that it won't. I think it's fair for them to get extra reassurment.


We've been told many, many times of the existence of the tactical module. I fail to see how repeating that it has been planned and is in the works yet again will have any effect.
Yes it will be nice to see, and yes we all want it to be good. But they can't reference it every other month, especially not at the expense of every other question or concern. There's so much we don't know about 5e yet, and I'd rather hear something new than a bi-weekly update and reminder of a single rules option. 

And getting it out early, when the base rules are not ready, to say nothing of the module itself, will only do more harm. 



Um, the 4E play style is more than a battle mat tactical module. If that's the sum total of support for the 4E play style, then I'm not going to buy it and I'm actively going to rail against it in public forums...Smile
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
There are times when people have said rude and hateful things about the developers, thats theonly thing I would suggest people should apologize for.



What one person thinks is rude and hateful is what another person thinks is normal conversation. I for instance don't use profanity, but others do. So are they being rude by using profanity when conversing with me, without them knowing my preference? Of course not.

How about you start a thread and quote when people are being rude and maybe point out what you think is rude.

As far as I know stating facts like "The developers don't seem to understand what made 4E liked by its fans." is not being rude. Its stating a fact.

Not everything that said is negative is rude. That's just something a lot of posters need to get over. If you have no negative feedback, then you get no improvement...



Insults are rude.

Saying 5e is stupid is fine, if not a little childish.
Saying the developers are idiots is insulting, and shoudn't be tolerated, or should be apologized for.

That's what I mean, lokaire Kiss 

My mind is a deal-breaker.

There are times when people have said rude and hateful things about the developers, thats theonly thing I would suggest people should apologize for.



What one person thinks is rude and hateful is what another person thinks is normal conversation. I for instance don't use profanity, but others do. So are they being rude by using profanity when conversing with me, without them knowing my preference? Of course not.

How about you start a thread and quote when people are being rude and maybe point out what you think is rude.

As far as I know stating facts like "The developers don't seem to understand what made 4E liked by its fans." is not being rude. Its stating a fact.

Not everything that said is negative is rude. That's just something a lot of posters need to get over. If you have no negative feedback, then you get no improvement...


Claiming that "the developers don't seem to understand what made 4e liked by its fans" is a fact is in fact your opinion.  Stating opinions as facts I happen to find insulting.  

Further, as often as you post on here if you haven't seen the numerous times where the devs are called names or said to be incompentent than you must be either willfully ignoring those comments or being duplicitous.  And now for the lokiare finish...Smile 
I respectfully would like to request that you guys give the 4e fans some reassurance that their desires for a 4e playstyle module will either happen, or let them know now that it won't.



They'll NEVER answer this, at least at this stage, as the vague hope of inclusion is the only keeping me (and many other 4E fans I suspect) interested enough to make the dream of uniting the fanbase's cashflow into Hasbro's pockets look vaguely plausible. If they told the truth (answering either way would drive one faction or the other away), Hasbro might decide to just cut its losses and shelve the whole thing here and now (it IS Christmas Layoff Season in Hasbro-land after all).

Frankly, this playtest has gone so badly in my gaming circles that I'm the only one even still following the 5E playtest. The group I was actually testing with has chosen to start a RIFTS campaign instead (its easier to justify bad mechanics in a game that hasn't been updated in more than twenty years... and there's no vancian casting in Rifts) and no one else I know is interested in even trying it (certainly no one in the multiple 4E campaigns I'm in want to).



We've seen the opposite effect at our LGS, and have seen many people's interest peeked. Including many people who had retired from D&D (thinking the well had dried), and many who have never been interested in RPG before. 

They say that the number of survey responders is going up with each playtest, so I think your experience seems to be unusual to say the least. An important thing to note is that cost of doing an open playetest is much more then closed development, maybe D&D is not the best funded division of wotc, it seems clear they are willing to go out on a limb to support this endeavor. Your comments seem less about what's happening to the game and more about what you want, out of bitterness. Sorry, but leave your fantasies in your games.
 



The money they are making off of the DDi subs alone is enough to support quite a bit. Someone calculated a while back that they could have about 50 people on staff with managers at average pay. What I can see we have is around 7 people on full time staff right now, so they have a lot of money to work with...Smile
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
They say that the number of survey responders is going up with each playtest, so I think your experience seems to be unusual to say the least. An important thing to note is that cost of doing an open playetest is much more then closed development, maybe D&D is not the best funded division of wotc, it seems clear they are willing to go out on a limb to support this endeavor. Your comments seem less about what's happening to the game and more about what you want, out of bitterness. Sorry, but leave your fantasies in your games.
 



That's not in fact what they said.  They said that the number of playtesters kept increasing.  That doesn't tell us that the number of survey responses have kept going up.  I happen to know that I am still counted as a playtester but I haven't bothered sending in a response for the past two iterations (why bother?)

-Polaris




HE said that the number of playtesters participating is increasing, are you still participating? Sounds like no....
It was reitereated in the video.

-Zago aka the Brain.

My mind is a deal-breaker.

There are times when people have said rude and hateful things about the developers, thats theonly thing I would suggest people should apologize for.



What one person thinks is rude and hateful is what another person thinks is normal conversation. I for instance don't use profanity, but others do. So are they being rude by using profanity when conversing with me, without them knowing my preference? Of course not.

How about you start a thread and quote when people are being rude and maybe point out what you think is rude.

As far as I know stating facts like "The developers don't seem to understand what made 4E liked by its fans." is not being rude. Its stating a fact.

Not everything that said is negative is rude. That's just something a lot of posters need to get over. If you have no negative feedback, then you get no improvement...



Insults are rude.

Saying 5e is stupid is fine, if not a little childish.
Saying the developers are idiots is insulting, and shoudn't be tolerated, or should be apologized for.

That's what I mean, lokaire  




Yeah, when they show that they don't know what they are doing, I and others are going to call them out on it. That's called constructive criticism. I haven't seen anyone call 5E stupid. I have seen many people say they wouldn't play it if it looks anything like the play test. I haven't seen people say the developers are idiots. I have seen people say they don't understand why people liked 4E and that they don't seem to understand their own math. These are easily provable facts. They don't understand why people liked 4E because they thought a tactical module would satisfy all of the 4E fans requirements, completely missing the 'balance' factor and the 'everyone can contribute equally but in different ways' factor. They completely missed that we aren't in love with the mechanics, but we are in love with what the mechanics allow us to do...Smile
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
There are times when people have said rude and hateful things about the developers, thats theonly thing I would suggest people should apologize for.



What one person thinks is rude and hateful is what another person thinks is normal conversation. I for instance don't use profanity, but others do. So are they being rude by using profanity when conversing with me, without them knowing my preference? Of course not.

How about you start a thread and quote when people are being rude and maybe point out what you think is rude.

As far as I know stating facts like "The developers don't seem to understand what made 4E liked by its fans." is not being rude. Its stating a fact.

Not everything that said is negative is rude. That's just something a lot of posters need to get over. If you have no negative feedback, then you get no improvement...


Claiming that "the developers don't seem to understand what made 4e liked by its fans" is a fact is in fact your opinion.  Stating opinions as facts I happen to find insulting.  

Further, as often as you post on here if you haven't seen the numerous times where the devs are called names or said to be incompentent than you must be either willfully ignoring those comments or being duplicitous.  And now for the lokiare finish... 



Care to link or cite some sources? Maybe post some quotes? No, actually a number of 4E fans have come on here and stated that the developers don't seem to understand why they liked 4E. So its not just 'my opinion'. Its a widely held belief. It is probably not universal but it is widely held.

As to the developers being called names or incompetent. Up until Mearls admitted they were trying to anger people in the play test to see what was acceptable and what wasn't, they really did look like they were incompetent. In fact because they are perpetrating a public relations nightmare by doing that I stand by that assessment...Smile
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
They say that the number of survey responders is going up with each playtest, so I think your experience seems to be unusual to say the least. An important thing to note is that cost of doing an open playetest is much more then closed development, maybe D&D is not the best funded division of wotc, it seems clear they are willing to go out on a limb to support this endeavor. Your comments seem less about what's happening to the game and more about what you want, out of bitterness. Sorry, but leave your fantasies in your games.
 



That's not in fact what they said.  They said that the number of playtesters kept increasing.  That doesn't tell us that the number of survey responses have kept going up.  I happen to know that I am still counted as a playtester but I haven't bothered sending in a response for the past two iterations (why bother?)

-Polaris




HE said that the number of playtesters participating is increasing, are you still participating? Sounds like no....
It was reitereated in the video.

-Zago aka the Brain.




Am I getting playtest packets and surveys?  YES!  Therefor I am participating.  WOTC never said the survey responses were increasing.  In fact they rather cleverly made it seem like it did while not saying that at all, and you fell for it.

-Polaris
There are times when people have said rude and hateful things about the developers, thats theonly thing I would suggest people should apologize for.



What one person thinks is rude and hateful is what another person thinks is normal conversation. I for instance don't use profanity, but others do. So are they being rude by using profanity when conversing with me, without them knowing my preference? Of course not.

How about you start a thread and quote when people are being rude and maybe point out what you think is rude.

As far as I know stating facts like "The developers don't seem to understand what made 4E liked by its fans." is not being rude. Its stating a fact.

Not everything that said is negative is rude. That's just something a lot of posters need to get over. If you have no negative feedback, then you get no improvement...



Insults are rude.

Saying 5e is stupid is fine, if not a little childish.
Saying the developers are idiots is insulting, and shoudn't be tolerated, or should be apologized for.

That's what I mean, lokaire  




Yeah, when they show that they don't know what they are doing, I and others are going to call them out on it. That's called constructive criticism. I haven't seen anyone call 5E stupid. I have seen many people say they wouldn't play it if it looks anything like the play test. I haven't seen people say the developers are idiots. I have seen people say they don't understand why people liked 4E and that they don't seem to understand their own math. These are easily provable facts. They don't understand why people liked 4E because they thought a tactical module would satisfy all of the 4E fans requirements, completely missing the 'balance' factor and the 'everyone can contribute equally but in different ways' factor. They completely missed that we aren't in love with the mechanics, but we are in love with what the mechanics allow us to do...



People should apologize for saying things insulting about 4e players also.
Why do you think devs don't know what 4e peeps are saying? Just because they haven't released the 4e module yet?
If they release it, and it responds to your complaints would that mean that you are wrong, and all this hemming and hawing was for naught?

Take my hand lokaire.... we can do this togethor. Kiss 

My mind is a deal-breaker.

Why do you think devs don't know what 4e peeps are saying? Just because they haven't released the 4e module yet?
 



If I had to guess, it's because Mearls and many other members of the Dev team have shown a shocking lack of knowledge of their own game (specifically 4E).  Not only that but IMHO they've shown a shocking lack of knowledge and appreciation why many people like 4E and why 4E Essentials flopped.

-Polaris
They say that the number of survey responders is going up with each playtest, so I think your experience seems to be unusual to say the least. An important thing to note is that cost of doing an open playetest is much more then closed development, maybe D&D is not the best funded division of wotc, it seems clear they are willing to go out on a limb to support this endeavor. Your comments seem less about what's happening to the game and more about what you want, out of bitterness. Sorry, but leave your fantasies in your games.
 



That's not in fact what they said.  They said that the number of playtesters kept increasing.  That doesn't tell us that the number of survey responses have kept going up.  I happen to know that I am still counted as a playtester but I haven't bothered sending in a response for the past two iterations (why bother?)

-Polaris




HE said that the number of playtesters participating is increasing, are you still participating? Sounds like no....
It was reitereated in the video.

-Zago aka the Brain.




Am I getting playtest packets and surveys?  YES!  Therefor I am participating.  WOTC never said the survey responses were increasing.  In fact they rather cleverly made it seem like it did while not saying that at all, and you fell for it.

-Polaris



I love it... been tricked again, why!?

You have no idea and neither do I. However, I am less inclined to think this the work of a mastermind villian. Maybe it's just my nature, but I don't wear tin fil hats and not one to presume consipiracy.

 

My mind is a deal-breaker.

I love it... been tricked again, why!?

You have no idea and neither do I. However, I am less inclined to think this the work of a mastermind villian. Maybe it's just my nature, but I don't wear tin fil hats and not one to presume consipiracy.

 



The problem is you stated something as a fact and you have just admitted that it was your interpretation of something that was a lot less clear cut than you wanted everyone else to believe....and I called you out on it.

As for why they would trick you?  That's obvious.  The Devs want us (and their corporate masters) to believe the playtest is going a lot better than it really is.  It's called positive spin, and every company and dev team does it.

-Polaris
I love it... been tricked again, why!?

You have no idea and neither do I. However, I am less inclined to think this the work of a mastermind villian. Maybe it's just my nature, but I don't wear tin fil hats and not one to presume consipiracy.

 



The problem is you stated something as a fact and you have just admitted that it was your interpretation of something that was a lot less clear cut than you wanted everyone else to believe....and I called you out on it.

As for why they would trick you?  That's obvious.  The Devs want us (and their corporate masters) to believe the playtest is going a lot better than it really is.  It's called positive spin, and every company and dev team does it.

-Polaris



I had no intention of misleading anyone, I didn't realize there was a different interpretation until you presented it. 
I still think it's a silly interpretation, tho. Companies put spin on things, sure. What you describe is worse, its mis-leading the public.

Once again it's weird that you suggest the design team is misleading the public within an open playtest. It's like lying about your age to the cop, as you hand him your license. Why they would put their product in greater jeopordy by fabricating minor things they don't even need to comment about... This is conspiracy type of thinking. Google hangout and the LL are not going to set the stage for the future of the product.... this is laughable. 

-Zago tha genius

My mind is a deal-breaker.

I love it... been tricked again, why!?

You have no idea and neither do I. However, I am less inclined to think this the work of a mastermind villian. Maybe it's just my nature, but I don't wear tin fil hats and not one to presume consipiracy.

 



The problem is you stated something as a fact and you have just admitted that it was your interpretation of something that was a lot less clear cut than you wanted everyone else to believe....and I called you out on it.

As for why they would trick you?  That's obvious.  The Devs want us (and their corporate masters) to believe the playtest is going a lot better than it really is.  It's called positive spin, and every company and dev team does it.

-Polaris



I had no intention of misleading anyone, I didn't realize there was a different interpretation until you presented it. 
I still think it's a silly interpretation, tho. Companies put spin on things, sure. What you describe is worse, its mis-leading the public.



Corporations and govts around the world do it every day.  It's actually fairly benign spin since no actual falsehood was spoken no matter how you slice it.



Once again it's weird that you suggest the design team is misleading the public within an open playtest. It's like lying about your age to the cop, as you hand him your license. Why they would put their product in greater jeopordy by fabricating minor things they don't even need to comment about... This is conspiracy type of thinking. Google hangout and the LL are not going to set the stage for the future of the product.... this is laughable. 

-Zago tha genius




No, it is realistic.  It is a cold-eyed assessment based on Wotc's past behavior for the past ten years (and Hasbros).  There is no way that any of us can actually verify how many survey results were in fact mailed back without inside (and hightly protected industrial) information and it's information (like sales figures) that companies simply do not release (any company not just Wotc).  I find it extremely telling that they did not say that survey participation was increasing when it would have been very easy to simply say that.  The fact they didn't to me is a sure sign that it isn't (like a company reporting a sold-in figure as sales when in fact sold-in means 'shipped to retailers').

It's not 'conspiracy' type thinking.  It's the type of cold-eyed thinking you aquire after years of reading earnings reports.

-Polaris