Something else I took issue with (regarding the marketing) was what they used their NDA to do.  The playtesters signed one, and eventually allowed a few playtesters to tell about their play experience BUT ONLY IF IT WAS POSITIVE.  

Sen, the difference is "optional suppliment" vs. "expanding the core".  Having Half-Orc Barbarians or druids in a separate $40 book from the $40 PHB is a lot more of a pain in the ass-- and a lot less optional-- than having gecko-man Spellthieves, or whatever "not D&D" stuff they want to put in suppliments.  The thing I have a beef with is holding some of the "core" content hostage to compel people who otherwise wouldn't have bought a suppliment full of new weirdness to buy one anyway.

Quote from: BASHMANSomething else I took issue with (regarding the marketing) was what they used their NDA to do.  The playtesters signed one, and eventually allowed a few playtesters to tell about their play experience BUT ONLY IF IT WAS POSITIVE.  

Is this really true?  If that's the case, then I will think about the blog posting over on Ain't It Cool in a very different light.

Quote from: James McMurrayHubbard? I didn't know Scientologist was a race.

We could make it a monster race...

Quote from: StuartAn entire Race for Elrond? :haw:

Er, yeah. RTFM kids.

Quote from: walkerpIs this really true?

Yes. I wrote about it in the highlight of january when I did the last D&D survey (february 1st I think). Originally, those conditions were kept secret. When this info was leaked, WotC provided a weak explanation.  I probably provided a link on the survey (or look on Enworld for the whole debacle).

Quote from: walkerpIf that's the case, then I will think about the blog posting over on Ain't It Cool in a very different light.

It is my understanding that these guidelines (speak only positively) were to end at D&D experience. Apparently, people are now free to share positive and negative experience. That's what I heard.

I'd really like to read some reviews from people not involved in the playtest, and who were more objective in their review.  I can't think of any game that didn't have some areas that were less than OMG 100%!!!111!

Quote from: Consonant DudeWhen this info was leaked, WotC provided a weak explanation.

Probably because that's the only type of explanation they have available to them. Stacking the deck would hurt them far more than any negative playtest review.

Seanchai

Quote from: walkerpIs this really true?  If that's the case, then I will think about the blog posting over on Ain't It Cool in a very different light.

Oh, well now the NDA is lifted, so I think that the Blog there is genuine.  The NDA was just lifted this weekend for the D&D experience thing.  Prior to that, all feedback that was released to the public had to positive though.  I think that the ain't it cool blog just happens to be positive.  There is another blog that has some criticisms of it (as well as positive info) here. His criticisms is that the game is no faster to play than 3e was, and the die rolls are not much fewer than 3e.

Quote from: Bradford C. WalkerThey're selling gimped wares...

This is what I'm afraid of, by the way.
 
There is another possibility, that the Dragonomicon I is going to be excellent and thick, filled with data about chromatic dragons, their habitats, how they differ from other dragons so much they'd require their own book, other creatures related to chromatic dragons, dragon related spells, feats, and rituals, and a few adventures. I don't think the odds on this are great, but if the book was as thick as today's PHB, and of similarly high quality somehow, I believe that would justify the deliberate separation.

Even though I'm dubious, I'll reserve full judgment until I see the final copy, though. My guess is that it's going to be something like 3.5's books on the Abyss and Baator; good but far too thin to justify deliberately inflated prices. Books that ought to have been sold together or has high-quality soft-covers were sold as expensive hard-covers which, incidentally, turned the kind of product I had a burning desire to buy* into the kind of product that I'll browse absentmindedly when I'm drinking at a friends' house.

*On a side note, the books on the lower planes and especially on the higher planes lack a special kind of punch I'd expect. Especially something like the Book of Something Darkness Or Whatever and the Book of Exalted Poisons. I look at the sticker adorning these books and say, "What? I have to be 18 to be told that S&M is Evil? Lame and boring. Why am I not writing these books?"

Quote from: BASHMANYou know what's different.  I'll spell it out.  In the past, Wizards, and before them TSR, put out a bunch of suppliments like Complete Fighter or Sword & Fist, etc, and people bought those because they played fighters and wanted their fighters fleshed out.  After 3.5 they put out Complete Warrior, and began putting out new base classes for people to try, and those also sold well.  But the core of AD&D, and 3.0, and 3.5 were complete games.  They were not "collectable parts of a set" the way that 4E is going to be-- that is with pieces INTENTIONALLY missing that people will have to buy other crap just to get.  

For example if the 3.5 PHB didn't have Monks or Barbarians in it, but they were introduced as "new" base classes in Complete Warrior, people would have screamed bloody murder.  I have no problem with Rpg companies trying to sell suppliments-- but suppliments are supposed to add more to an already complete product, not incrementally complete woefully inadequate product.  That is the difference between 3.X and 4.0.

AD&D didn't have barbarians in it, and dropped racial classes, yet strangely it felt complete.  D&D didn't have barbarians, monks, druids, assassins or illusionists, yet it felt complete.  AD&D 2e dumped half orcs, and assassins, didn't have cavaliers (did it have barbarians, I don't believe so, though my memory may be hazy) and it didn't feel like an incomplete game.  A game doesn't need everything its predecessors had to be complete.

Quote from: beejazzOkay, this I get. Huge swaths of feats and spells could get the axe and I probably wouldn't mind. I'm just thinking losing things that were core to the old edition and adding things that were tested little and didn't seem to make much of a splash in the supplements does seem a strategy to avoid.

I don't mind losing monks as much as losing gnomes, and there are huge swaths of feats and spells I can say for sure I wouldn't miss if they were nixed or mind if they were changed. .

 Gnomes won't be such a big deal. (Less of a big deal than I thought, orignally by far). There was a rewards card at the DDXP delve that "unlocks the gnome race for LFR", and mentions clearly that the rules for playing a gnome will be in the Monster Manual. I tried to win one for irony purposes, but I ended up just donating my tokens to a friend.

Quote from: James McMurrayHubbard? I didn't know Scientologist was a race.

It's one of the new classes. The, er, favored class for Half-Elves.

I heard they're planning on releasing a new race in addition to the Tiefling and Eladrin, too. I was hoping for lizardmen, but know. Some kind of tiny +0 ECL troll. I hear they'll favor wizards in core, but my source tells me they'll expand it 3.5-style to a new arcane class that gets bonuses for obscuring their face.

Quote from: SettembriniI won´t be adopting, until someone else convinces me via actual play. That is, I was totally responsible for over thirty people getting into 3.5. I DMed and explained and everybody adopted and had a good time, some people started DMing with groups of their own, even though they had never played RPGs before.

I'm seeing this a lot. I happen to feel the same way, in point of fact. It's not out yet, but once I start seeing some reports, I'll know whether it's a game worth picking up.

This is pointless speculation, but I'm wondering how many other people out there, who ordinarily possess that oh-so-crucial 'zeal for conversion', are deciding to wait and see what happens. In the absence of clearly-delineated metrics, there's no way to know how much of the game's audience fulfills this role, but I think that 4e is going to need evangelists to overcome the following obstacles:

Internal competition. In 2000, 3E faced a different playing field. For one thing, there was no d20 system to provide internal competition. 4E is being released at a time when there are myriad D&D/d20-compatible sourcebooks already on the market. One wonders if 4E will have enough momentum to vault over all the 3.0 and 3.5 material on the average gamer's shelf.

World of Warcraft. In a recent interview, I was asked about the effect that video games have on tabletop game sales. Though I don't have any figures, I do believe that there isn't much direct competition -- they provide completely different experiences, and satisfy different entertainment needs. In other words, MMOs compete with each other, and tabletop games compete with one another. But Rifts (250,000 copies sold) is not going to compete with WoW (ten million users). No one is going to choose between the two, any more than you would choose between the DMG and a new George R. R. Martin hardcover. In general, if you're looking for a novel, you go look for a novel.

However, it seems that the developers of 4E are trying to accentuate the similarities between their game and MMOs: the monthly subcription fee for D&D Insider, the online Gaming Table, the database that allows "patching" (digital errata delivery). This is a curious strategy, as it seems to be an attempt to place 4E in direct competition with WoW.

Word of mouth. When 3E was released in 2000, there were plenty of sites and newsgroups and mailing lists. But over the past eight years, the numbers have increased exponentially. I'm a hardcore gamer, and I was working at a video game studio (surrounded by hardcore gamers), and we were only vaguely aware of what 3E would be like. Now, I have access to a great deal of information about 4E. This makes it a lot easier to evaluate the game before its release.

Quote from: SettembriniBTW, the covers, they are full of suck!

Yes, they truly are. It's kind of sad, really. I don't know why they couldn't come up with something more compelling.

Quote from: Abyssal MawGnomes won't be such a big deal. (Less of a big deal than I thought, orignally by far). There was a rewards card at the DDXP delve that "unlocks the gnome race for LFR", and mentions clearly that the rules for playing a gnome will be in the Monster Manual. I tried to win one for irony purposes, but I ended up just donating my tokens to a friend.

If you can play a gnome with the three core books, this is a great relief.

You guys realize that there is another group that will buy this book?

There is a faction or group that buys ANYTHING that has dragons on the cover - whether they know how to play the associated game or not . (!!) (And its not all girls or women)

IF this book has really nice artwork or looks near "coffee table Art book" quality - then they will get a lot of sales amongst that non-gamer group.


Why else do you think that there are usually 5 to 6 different calendars available every year that feature artwork of Dragons??....

- Ed C.